LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



Chap. L Copyright No. 

SheIf„/gX^-: 



A& 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



Hefo Testament f^atrtilioofcg 

EDITED BT 

SHAILER MATHEWS 



A HISTORY OF 

THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE 
NEW TESTAMENT 



ffexv Cestament Randbooks 

EDITED BY SHAILER MATHEWS 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 



A series of volumes presenting briefly and intelligibly the 
results of the scientific study of the New Testament. Each vol- 
ume covers its own field, and is intended for the general reader as 
well as the special student. 

Arrangements have been made for the following volumes : — 

THE HISTORY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. Professor Marvin R. Vincent, Union Theo- 
logical Seminary. [Ready. 

THE HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. Professor Henry S. Nash, Cambridge Divinity 
School. 

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
Professor B. Wisner Bacon, Yale Divinity School. 

THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Professor J. R. S. Sterrett, Amherst College. 

THE HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES IN PALESTINE. 

Professor Shailer Mathews, The University of Chicago. 

[Ready. 
THE LIFE OF PAUL. President Rush Rhees, The University 
of Rochester. 

THE HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Dr. C. W. Votaw, 
The University of Chicago. 

THE TEACHING OF JESUS. Professor George B. Stevens, 
Yale Divinity School. 

THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Pro- 
fessor E. P. Gould. [In Preparation. 

THE TEACHING OF JESUS AND MODERN SOCIAL PROB- 
LEMS. Professor Francis G. Peabody, Harvard Divinity 
School. 

THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE UNTIL EUSEBIUS. 
Professor J. W. Platner, Harvard Divinity School. 



A HISTOEY 



OF THE 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE 
NEW TESTAMENT 



BY 



MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D. 

BALDWIN PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND 

LITERATURE IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 

NEW YORK 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

LONDON : MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd. 
1899 

All rights reserved 





J -1889 



A ^6 



*><& 



45£ 



COPYBIGHT, 1899, 

By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 



TWO COPIES RECEIVED. 



A&2&& '■'■■:, ^ 

f 






NorfoootJ ^«08 

J. S. Cuihing & Co. - Berwick k Smith 
Norwood Mais. U.S.A. 



PREFACE 

This volume is simply what its title imports, — a 
History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testa- 
ment, in which the attempt is made to exhibit its 
development in a form available for New Testament 
students who have not given special attention to the 
subject, and to direct such to the sources for more 
detailed study, if they are so inclined. It is gathered 
from sources which are indicated under the several 
topics and which are well known to textual scholars. 
The great interest awakened during the last few years 
by the special discussions of the Codex Bezae has led 
me to assign considerable space to these, and the 
section on this subject has been prepared for this 
volume by my valued friend and colleague and former 
pupil, the Eev. James Everett Frame of Union Theo- 
logical Seminary. 

MARVIN R. VINCENT. 



CONTENTS 



PAET I 

NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER I 

PAGE 

Need and Office of Textual Criticism ... 1 

Definition of a Text — Distinction between a Text 
and a Copy — An Autograph not necessarily faultless 

— Errors in Written Copies and their Causes — Num- 
ber of Variations in New Testament Text. 

CHAPTER II 
The Manuscripts of the New Testament ... 8 

Sources of Evidence for Restoration of New Testa- 
ment Text — Uncials — Stichometry — Eusebian Can- 
ons and Ammonian Sections — tlt\ql and Ke<f>d\aia — 
Cursives — Mode of designating Uncials and Cursives 

— Lectionaries — Palimpsests — The Five Primary 
Uncials — Secondary Uncials. 

CHAPTER III 

Versions 24 

Importance to Textual Criticism — Character of 
their Evidence — Latin Versions : (1) Texts pre- 
ceding Jerome ; (2) Jerome and the Vulgate — 
Syriac Versions : (1) Peshitto ; (2) Curetonian ; 



Vlll CONTENTS 

PAGB 

(3) Lewis Palimpsest and its Relations to Other 
Syriac Versions ; (4) Philoxenian ; (5) Harclean ; 
(6) Karkaphensian — Egyptian Versions: (1) Mem- 
phitic ; (2) Thebaic ; (3) Bashmuric — Ethiopic, 
Armenian, and Gothic Versions. 

CHAPTER IV 
Patristic Quotations 36 

Habits of Fathers in Quotation — Value of Patristic 
Quotations and Caution in Using. 



PART II 

HISTORY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER V 
Textual Criticism of the Early Church ... 42 

Early Date of Corruptions — Allusions to Wilful 
Corruptions in the Earlier Apologists — Lack oi Care 
in Preparation of Manuscripts — Harmonies — Reasons 
for Delay in the Application of Printing to the New 
Testament — History of the Printed Text and of the 
Accompanying Development of Textual Criticism falls 
into Three Periods : (1) Period of the Reign of the 
Textus Receptus (1516-1770) ; (2) Transition Period 
from Textus Receptus to Older Uncial Text (1770- 
1830) ; (3) Period of Dethronement of Textus Re- 
ceptus and Effort to restore the Oldest and Purest 
Text by Means of the Genealogical Method (1830- 
1899). 

CHAPTER VI 
First Period (1516-1770). The Complutensian Poly- 
glot and Erasmus's Greek Testament . . 48 

The Complutensian Polyglot: (1) History; (2) 
Manuscripts used in Preparation of — Erasmus's First 



CONTENTS IX 

PAGE 

Edition of the Greek Testament : (1) Manuscripts 
employed ; (2) Four Subsequent Editions — Greek 
Testament of Colinaeus. 

CHAPTER VII 
First Period (1516-1770). The Textus Receptus . 56 

Robert Stephen — The Ten Editions of Beza — The 
Antwerp Polyglot — Attention directed to Patristic 
Quotations : (1) Lucas Brugensis ; (2) Hugo Gro- 
tius — The Paris Polyglot — The Elzevirs — Origin of 
the Term " Textus Receptus." 

CHAPTER VIII 

First Period (1516-1770). Beginnings of a Critical 

Method 63 

New Impulse given in England by Cod. A — In 
France by Simon — Walton's Polyglot and its Criti- 
cal Apparatus — Curcellaeus's Greek Testament — 
Fell's Greek Testament — Mill's New Testament — 
Von Maestricht, Toinard, Wells — Richard Bentley : 
(1) Glimpse of the Genealogical Method ; (2) Bent- 
ley's "Proposals;" (3) Collation of Manuscripts of 
the Vulgate; (4) Contents of the "Proposals" — 
William Mace. 

CHAPTER IX 

First Period (1516-1770). Movement toward the 

Genealogical Method 76 

Anticipatory Statement of Certain Principles of 
Modern Textual Criticism — Bengel's Greek Testa- 
ment: (1) Its Characteristics; (2) Division of An- 
cient Documents into Families — J. J. Wetstein : 
(1) Prolegomena published anonymously ; (2) Wet- 
stein's Greek Testament — Solomon Semler — Review 
of the First Period. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER X 



PAGE 



Second Period (1770-1830). Transition from the 
Textus Receptus to the Older Uncial Text 
— Griesbach 96 

Ed. Harwood's Greek Testament — C. F. Matthsei 
— F. K. Alter — Birch, Adler, Moldenhauer and 
Tychsen — Slovenly Work of Moldenhauer and Tych- 
sen — Griesbach: (1) His First Edition of the Greek 
Testament ; (2) His Critical Materials ; (3) His 
"Syinbolse Criticse ; " (4) Critical Conditions con- 
fronted by him ; (5) His Classification of Families ; 
(6) Some of his Critical Canons ; (7) His Text the 
Basis of the Editions of Schott, Marker, Knapp, Titt- 
mann, Hahn, and Theile — Hug — Scholz. 

CHAPTER XI 

Second Period (1770-1830). The Successors of Gries- 
bach 105 

Hug — Scholz. 

CHAPTER XII 

Third Period (1830-81). Efforts for the Restora- 
tion of the Primitive Text — Lachmann . 110 

Lachmann : (1) First Attempt to construct a Text 
directly from Ancient Documents ; (2) Editions of 
his Greek Testament ; (3) Classification of Texts ; 
(4) His Six Rules for estimating the Comparative 
Weight of Readings ; (5) Peculiarities and Faults ; 
(6) Table of some of his Readings compared with 
those of Textus Receptus and Westcott and Hort — 
Work of Hahn, Theile, Bloomfield, and Others. 

CHAPTER XIII 

Third Period (1830-81). Tisciienporf . . .117 

His Journeys to the East — Discovery of Cod. K 
— Character and Value of this Codex — Attempts to 



CONTENTS xi 



depreciate it — The "Editio Octava Critica Major" 

— Teschendorf's Critical Principles — Relative Value 
of Tischendorf's Results. 

CHAPTER XIV 
Third Period (1830-81). Tregelles . . . .130 

Prospectus of Critical Edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment — " Account of the Printed Text 1 ' — Edition 
of the Greek Testament — Introduced the Method of 
" Comparative Criticism" — His Critical Principles 

— Tregelles and Tischendorf compared — Alf ord. 

CHAPTER XV 

Third Period (1830-81). Reaction toward the Tex- 

tus Receptus — Scrivener and Burgon . . 139 

Scrivener — His "New Testament according to the 
Text of the Authorised Version with Variations of 
the Revised Version" — His "Plain Introduction to 
the Criticism of the New Testament " — His Critical 
Principles — Burgon — T. S. Green — W. Kelly — 
J. B. McClellan. 

CHAPTER XVI 

Third Period (1830-81). Westcott and Hort, and 

Revisers' Text of 1881 145 

Their Introduction — Their Critical Principles — 
The Genealogical Method — Classification of Types 
of Text — Criticisms of their Work — The Revised 
Version of 1881. 

CHAPTER XVII 
Recent Contributions. Weiss — Studies in Codex D 167 

B. Weiss's "Neue Testament" — Studies in the 
Codex Bezae : (1) Theory of Latinisation ; (2) Theory 



Xll CONTENTS 

PA6X 

of Syriacisation ; (3) Theory of Jewish-Christian Ori- 
gin ; (4) Theory of Two Editions of Acts and Luke ; 
(5) Fr. Blass ; (6) Theory of Weiss ; (7) Theory of 
Salmon — General Review. 



APPENDIX 
Additional Books of Reference 177 

Index 181 



A 

HISTOKY OF THE TEXTUAL CEITICISM 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

PART I 

NATUEE AND SOUKCES OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER I 
THE NEED AND OFFICE OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

Textual Criticism is that process by which it is introduc- 
sought to determine the original text of a document {^ s defiui " 
or of a collection of documents, and to exhibit it, freed 
from all the errors, corruptions, and variations which 
it may have accumulated in the course of its trans- 
mission by successive copyings. 

A text is the body of words employed by an author 
in the composition of a document ; as by Thucydides, 
in his History of the Peloponnesian War; by Dante in 
the Divina Commedia; or by Paul in the Epistle to 
the Romans. 

The word "text" is also applied to the body of 
words which constitutes an edition of an original doc- 
ument. Thus we speak of Lachmann's text of Lucre- 
tius, or of Witte's text of the Divina Commedia, or 
of Westcott and Hort's text of Romans and Galatians. 

B 1 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Original 
text of a 
document. 



The original 
document 
not neces- 
sarily with- 
out errors. 



These editions may approximate more or less to the 
texts of the original documents ; but unless they ex- 
actly reproduce those texts, they are not the texts of 
Lucretius, of Dante, or of Paul. There can be but one 
text of a document, and that is the body of words 
written by the author himself. The text of a docu- 
ment, accurately speaking, is that which is contained 
in its autograph. 

This is not to say that the autograph is without 
error. When we speak of the original text of a docu- 
ment, we mean only that it is what the author himself 
wrote, including whatever mistakes the author may 
have made. Every autograph is likely to contain such 
mistakes. The most careful writer for the press, on 
reading his work in print, often discovers omissions of 
words, incomplete sentences, unconscious substitutions 
of other words for those which he had intended to 
write, careless constructions which make his meaning 
ambiguous, or unintentional insertions of words which 
materially modify the sense which he meant to con- 
vey. These things are the results of lapses of atten- 
tion or memory, or of temporary diversions of thought. 
In the preparation of matter for the press, such errors 
are mostly corrected by careful proof-reading ; but be- 
fore the invention of printing, when hand-copying was 
the only means of publication, they were much more 
likely to be perpetuated. 

It is entirely possible that a careful transcription of 
a document by an intelligent and accurate scribe, a 
transcription in which the errors of the original were 
corrected, should have been really a better piece of 
work than the autograph itself, and, on the whole, 
more satisfactory to the author : only the revised copy 
was not the original text. 

The New Testament is no exception to this rule. 
If the autographs of the Pauline Epistles, for instance, 



NEED OF TEXTUAL CBITICISM 3 

should be recovered, they would no doubt be found to 
contain errors such as have been described. "If we 
consider that the authors themselves or their amanu- 
enses in dictation may have made mistakes, and that 
the former, in revision, may have introduced improve- 
ments and additions, — the question arises whether 
the text ever existed in complete purity at all, and 
in what sense" (Eeuss). 1 

The problem for the textual critic of the New Tes- Problem for 
tament grows out of the fact that the New Testament criVc.^™ 1 
autographs have disappeared, and with them all copies 
earlier than the middle of the fourth century. The 
contents of the original manuscripts can, therefore, 
be only approximately determined, through a com- 
parison of later copies, all of which are more or less 

1 Nothing can be more puerile or more desperate than the 
effort to vindicate the divine inspiration of Scripture by the 
assertion of the verbal inerrancy of the autographs, and to erect 
that assertion into a test of orthodoxy. For : — 

1. There is no possible means of verifying the assertion, since 
the autographs have utterly disappeared. 

2. It assumes a mechanical dictation of the ipsissima verba 
to the writers, which is contradicted by the whole character and 
structure of the Bible. 

3. It is of no practical value, since it furnishes no means of 
deciding between various readings or discrepant statements. 

4. It is founded upon a pure assumption as to the character 
of inspiration — namely, that inspiration involves verbal iner- 
rancy, which is the very thing to be proved, and which could 
be proved only by producing inerrant autographs. 

6. If a written, inspired revelation is necessary for mankind, 
and if such a revelation, in order to be inspired, must be ver- 
bally inerrant, the necessity has not been met. There is no 
verbally inerrant, and therefore no inspired, revelation in writ- 
ing. The autographs have vanished, and no divine guidance 
or interposition has prevented mistakes in transcription or in 
printing. The text of Scripture, in the best form in which 
critical scholarship can exhibit it, presents numerous errors and 
discrepancies. 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



An early 
date does 
not prove 
a purer text. 



Causes of 
copyists' 
errors. 



faulty, and which, exhibit numerous differences. 
These copies have been made from other copies, and 
these in turn from others. The critic has no evidence 
that any copy in his possession has been made directly 
from the original ; or, if there should be such a copy, 
which one it is. Pages of the two oldest copies known 
to us have evidently been written by the same scribe, 
yet their differences show that both were not copied 
from the same original. From the fact that a manu- 
script is of very early date, it cannot be assumed that 
its text is correspondingly purer, that is, more nearly 
approaching the autograph. It must first be settled 
how many copies there are between it and the auto- 
graph, and whether it followed an earlier or a later 
copy, and whether the copy which it followed cor- 
rectly represented the autograph or not. A fourth- 
century manuscript, for instance, may have been cop- 
ied from one only a few years earlier than itself; 
while an eleventh-century manuscript may have been 
copied from one of the third century, and that in turn 
from the autograph ; so that the later manuscript may 
exhibit a purer text than the earlier. Let it be borne 
in mind that the critic is searching, not for the oldest 
manuscript, but for the oldest text. 

In the multiplication of written copies errors were 
inevitable. Every new copy was a new source of 
error, since a copyist was likely not only to transcribe 
the errors of his exemplar, but also to make additional 
mistakes of his own. These errors might be conscious 
or unconscious, intentional or unintentional. A scribe, 
for example, might confuse two capital letters of simi- 
lar appearance, as 6, C (5) ; 0, 0. Or the similarity 
of two letters might cause him to overlook the one and 
pass directly to the other, as TTPOGAOftN for 7TP0C- 
GA0QN. Or letters might be transposed, as CPIAN 
(awTrjpuxv) for CPAfN (cr<DTYjpa Itjctow) . Again, if two 



ness. 



tion. 



NEED OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 5 

consecutive lines in the exemplar ended with the same 
word or syllable, the copyist's eye might catch the 
second line instead of the first, and he would omit the 
intermediate words. In the early days of the church 
many copies were made hurriedly, and mistakes were Careless- 
sure to arise from hasty transcription. So long as the 
scribe confined himself to the purely mechanical work 
of copying, the errors would be chiefly those of sight, 
hearing, or memory ; when he began to think for him- 
self, more mischief was done. The working of his 
own mind on the subject might move him to introduce 
a word which did not appear in his exemplar. He 
might find in the margin of his exemplar some oral 
tradition, like the story of the angel who troubled the 
pool of Bethzatha ; or some liturgical fragment, like 
the doxology of the Lord's Prayer ; or some explana- Interpola- 
tor comment, and incorporate these into the text. 
There were many who would have the books of ap- 
proved authors in a fuller rather than in a shorter 
form, through fear of losing something of what the 
author had said. Bengel remarks, "Many learned 
men are not easily persuaded to regard anything as 
superfluous." Porson l says that, so far from its being 
an affected or absurd idea that a marginal note can 
ever creep into the text, it has actually happened in 
millions of places. Again, a scribe might alter a text Deliberate 
in one Gospel in order to make it conform to a parallel 
passage in another ; or he might change an unclassical 
word or expression for a more classical one. Such 
things would be fruitful sources of variation. 2 

1 Letters to Travis. 

2 The causes of variation will be found treated in detail in 
Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 
4th ed., I, 7-19. Also in Schaff's Companion to the Greek 
Testament, 183, and the excellent little treatise of C. E. Ham- 
mond, Textual Criticism Applied to the New Testament. 



alteration. 



6 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Number of 
actual vari- 
ations. 



Mode of 
counting va- 
riations. 



It will be seen, therefore, that the task of the text- 
ual critic is no easy one. As early as 1707, Dr. Mill 
estimated the number of variations in the New Testa- 
ment text at 30,000 ; but this estimate was based on 
a comparatively few manuscripts. To-day, the num- 
ber of Greek manuscripts discovered and catalogued, 
and containing the whole or portions of the New Testa- 
ment, is estimated at 3829, and the number of actual 
variations in existing documents is reckoned roughly 
from 150,000 to 200,000.* 

This, however, does not mean that there is that 
number of places in the New Testament where various 
readings occur. It merely represents the sum total of 
various readings, each variation being counted as 
many times as it appears in different documents. 
For instance, taking some given standard and com- 
paring a number of documents with it, we find at one 
place in the first document compared four variations 
from the standard. In the second document, at the 
same place, we find three of these variations repeated, 
and two more which are not in the first document. 
We count, then, nine variations; that is, the three 
variations common to the two documents are counted 
twice. In a third document, in the same place, we 
find all of the last three and two new ones. This 
gives us fourteen in all, the three being counted over 
again, and so on through any number of documents. 
In other words, " Each place where a variation occurs 
is counted as many times over, not only as distinct 
variations occur upon it, but also as the same variation 
occurs in different manuscripts." 2 The sum total of 
these variations, moreover, includes even the unique 

1 See Nestle, Einfuhrung in das Griechische Neue Testa- 
ment, 23. 

2 Dr. Warfield, Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 
13. 



NEED OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 7 

reading of a single inferior document and the trifling 
variations in spelling. 1 

The work of the textual critic is to push back, as Work and 
nearly as possible, to the author's own draft, and to tne textual 
present the ipsissima verba of his text. His method critic, 
is to trace the various readings to their sources, to 
date and classify the sources, to ascertain which of 
these classes or families most nearly approaches the 
autograph, and to weigh the reasons which are most 
likely to have determined different readings. 2 

1 The vast number of variations furnishes no cause for alarm 
to the devout reader of the New Testament. It is the natural 
result of the great number of documentary sources. A very 
small proportion of the variations materially affects the sense, 
a much smaller proportion is really important, and no variation 
affects an article of faith or a moral precept. Dr. Hort reckons 
the amount of what can, in any sense, be called substantial 
variation, as hardly more than a thousandth part of the entire 
text. (See Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, Introduc- 
tion, 2.) 

2 "It is quite likely that some of the variations may have 
been due to changes introduced by the author himself into 
copies within his reach, after his manuscript had gone into 
circulation. These copies, circulating independently of those 
previously issued, would become the parents of a new family 
of copies, and would originate diversities from the original 
manuscript without any fault on the part of the transcribers " 
(Scrivener, Introduction, etc., I, 18, note). 



CHAPTEE II 



THE MANUSCKIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 



All extant 
New Testa- 
ment manu- 
scripts 
written on 
vellum. 



Uncials. 



The evidence by which the New Testament text is 
examined and restored is gathered from three sources : 
Manuscripts, Versions, and Patristic Quotations. 

The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, writ- 
ten on papyrus, have all perished, with the exception 
of a few scraps, not earlier than the earliest vellum 
manuscripts. All the extant manuscripts are written 
on vellum or parchment. Vellum was made from the 
skins of young calves ; the common parchment from 
those of sheep, goats, or antelopes. 

The extant Greek manuscripts are mostly of late 
date, and contain only portions of the New Testament. 
They are of two classes: Uncials, or Majuscules, and 
Cursives, or Minuscules. 

Uncials are written in capital letters. Each letter is 
formed separately, and there are no divisions between 
the words. 1 In form, these manuscripts resemble 
printed books, varying in size from large folio to octavo, 
and smaller. The pages contain one or two, rarely three 
or four, columns. Breathings and accents very rarely 

1 The word u uncial" is derived from uncia, meaning the 
twelfth part of anything; hence, "an ounce," "an inch.'" It 
does not mean that the letters were an inch in length. There 
are very small uncials, as on the papyrus rolls of Herculaneum. 
The term is commonly traced to Jerome (preface to Job) : " Un- 
cialibus, ut vulgo aiunt, litteris, onera magis exarata, quam 
codices." It is thought by some, however, that Jerome wrote 
" initialibus " instead of " uncialibus. " 

8 



NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 



and stich- 
ometry. 



occur, unless inserted by a later hand. In the earliest 
manuscripts punctuation is confined to a single point Punctuation 
here and there on a level with the top of the letters, and 
occasionally a small break, with or without the point, 
to denote a pause in the sense. Later, the single point 
is found indiscriminately at the head, middle, or foot 
of the letter. In the year 458 Euthalius, a deacon of 
Alexandria, published an edition of the Epistles of 
Paul, and soon after of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 
written stichometrically, that is, in single lines contain- 
ing only so many words as could be read, consistently 
with the sense, at a single inspiration. 1 This mode of 
writing was used long before in copying the poetical 
books of the Old Testament. It involved, however, 
a great waste of parchment, so that, in manuscripts 
of the New Testament, it was superseded after a few 
centuries by punctuation-marks. Divisions of the text 
were early made for various purposes. In the third 
century Ammonius of Alexandria prepared a Harmony 
of the Gospels, taking the text of Matthew as the basis, 



Harmonistic 
divisions. 



i Thus 1 Cor. 10 
read as follows: — 



23-26, stichometrically in English, would 



All things are lawful for me 
but all things are not expedient 
all things are lawful for me 
but all things edify not 
let no man his own seek 
("seek," ftreiTco, divided because of lack 
of space, and retrw forms a line by itself) 
but that of the other 
every thing that in the shambles is 
sold (iriSKovixevov divided) 
eat nothing ask- 
ing for the sake of the 
conscience 

for the Lord's is the earth (wptov abbreviated, kv.) and the ful- 
ness of it. 



10 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



Eusebian 
sections and 
canons. 



Notation of 
canons. 



and placing by its side in parallel columns the similar 
passages in tlie other Gospels. This, of course, destroyed 
the continuity of their narrative. Eusebius of Csesarea, 
in the early part of the fourth century, availing him- 
self of the work of Ammonius, devised a method 
of comparing the parallel passages not open to this 
objection. He divided the text of each Gospel into 
sections, the length of which was determined solely 
by their relation of parallelism or similarity to pas- 
sages in one or more of the other Gospels, or by their 
having no parallel. Thus, Section 8 of Matthew con- 
tains one verse, Matt. 3 : 3. This is parallel with Sec. 2 
of Mark (Mk. 1 : 3), Sec. 7 of Luke, (Luke 3 : 3-6), 
Sec. 10 of John (J. 1 : 23). Again, Sec. 5 of Luke 
(L. 2 : 48-52) has no parallel. 

These sections were then numbered consecutively 
in the margin, and distributed into ten tables or 
canons. Canon I contained the sections correspond- 
ing in the four Gospels ; Canon II the sections corre- 
sponding in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; Canon III, 
Matthew, Luke, John; Canon IV, Matthew, Mark, 
John. Then canons of the sections corresponding in 
two Gospels. Canon V, Matthew and Luke; Canon VI, 
Matthew and Mark ; Canon VII, Matthew and John ; 
Canon VIII, Mark and Luke; Canon IX, Luke and 
John ; Canon X, sections peculiar to one Gospel only. 

Under the number of each section in the margin of 
the several Gospels, which sections were numbered in 
black ink, there was written in red ink the number of 
the canon to which it belonged. These were tabu- 
lated. Suppose, for instance, we find in the margin 

of Matt. 4:1, — f = j^> that is to say the 15th sec- 
tion may be found in the 2d canon. Turning to this 
canon, we find that the 15th section in Matthew corre- 
sponds to the 6th section in Mark and the 15th in 



NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 



11 



currence of 
canons. 



'Titles. 1 



Luke. Turning to the margins of Mark and Luke, 
we find that Sec. 6 in Mark is Mark 1 : 12, and Sec. 15 
in Luke is Luke 4 : 1. Thus the harmony is : Matt. 
4:1; Mk. 1:12; Luke 4 : 1. 

The earliest manuscript in which the Eusebian sec- Earliest oc- 
tions and canons are found is the Sinaitic, where 
they were added, according to Tischendorf, by a very 
early hand. They are found also in Codex A. Some 
manuscripts have the sections without the canons. 1 

Another ancient mode of division, ascribed by some 
to Tatian, the harmonist, is the division of the Gospels 
into chapters called tltXol, because a title or summary 
of the contents of each chapter is appended to the 
numeral which designates it. A table of these 
chapters was usually prefixed to each Gospel. It is 
noticeable that, in each of the Gospels, the designa- 
tion and enumeration begins with what should be the 
second section. Thus, the first title in Matthew begins 
with the second chapter, and is prefaced with the 
words 7re/oi roiv fiayiov (about the Magi). In Mark the 
first title begins at 1 : 23, irepi rov Sat/xon£o/xevoo; (about 
the man possessed with a demon). In Luke, at 2 : 1, 
7T£/oi T7/s awoypacfrris (about the enrolment). In John, at 
2:1, Trepi tov ev Kava ya/xov (about the marriage in 
Cana). The reason for this is not apparent. It has 
been suggested that, in the first copies, the titles at 
the head of each Gospel were reserved for specially 
splendid illumination and were forgotten; but this 
would not explain why the second chapter was 
numbered as the first. 

There may also be noticed a division of the Acts Chapters. 



1 The original authority on this subject is the Epistle of 
Eusebius to Carpianus, which may be found in Teschendorf's 
New Testament, III, 145. The canons of Eusebius are tabu- 
lated in Bagster's large type Greek Testament, and the refer- 
ences to them are noted in the margin of the text. 



12 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Modern 
division into 
chapters. 



Significance 
of these 
divisions to 
criticism. 



Cursives. 



and Epistles into Ke<£aAcua or chapters, to answer the 
same purpose as the tltXol of the Gospels. These are 
of later date and of uncertain origin. They do not 
occur in A and C (fifth century), which exhibit the 
tlt\oi, the sections, and one of them (A) the canons. 

They are sometimes connected with the name of Eu- 
thalius, deacon of Alexandria, the reputed author of 
the system of stichometry. That he used them is cer- 
tain, but he probably derived them from some one else. 

Our present division into chapters is commonly 
ascribed to Cardinal Hugo, a Dominican monk of the 
thirteenth century, who used it for his Concordance 
of the Latin Vulgate. There are better grounds for 
ascribing it to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury (pb. 1228). 

The presence or absence of these divisions is im- 
portant in determining the date of a manuscript. 
Thus, in seeking to fix the date of the Codex Alexan- 
drinus, the absence of the Euthalian divisions of the 
Acts and Epistles would point to a date not later than 
the middle of the fifth century ; while the insertion of 
the Eusebian Canons would lead us to assign a date 
not earlier than the latter half of the fourth century. 1 

Cursive manuscripts are written in smaller letters, 
in a running hand, the letters being connected and the 
words separated. In the earliest cursives the system 
of punctuation closely resembles that of printed books. 
Uncial manuscripts are the earlier, from the fourth 
to the ninth century ; while cursives range from the 
ninth to the fifteenth. Some cursives are older than 



1 For divisions of the text, see article " Bible Text," in the 
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, by O. von Gebhardt, revised and 
largely rewritten by Ezra Abbot. On stichometry, two articles 
by J. Rendel Harris, American Journal of Philology, 1883, p. 31, 
and Stichometry, 1893. See also Scrivener, Introduction, etc., 
I, 60-67. 



NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 13 

some uncials. In papyrus manuscripts, however, 
uncial and cursive writing are found side by side 
from the earliest times at which Greek writing is 
known to us, the third century b.c. In the ninth 
century an ornamental style of running hand was in- 
vented, which superseded the use of uncials in books. 
As a general rule, the upright, square, and simple 
uncials indicate an earlier date. Narrow, oblong, 
slanting characters, ornamentation, and initial letters 
of larger size than the rest, are marks of later date. 

The following are specimens of cursive manu- 
scripts : — 

HXTP O UJDUTT^J_X5 U ' &^jJjKAA3 Ct^jJ/UlJ lA/& O^D • 

Oht<x HcT\i£rm*T-bfocr, 4rO«PVN>^ r ^ 

Codex Burney, 13th century. John 21 : 18. 

* xA-t»<r i/JKfiupe-pf-rt ^o»»V *oo^ « -ee^tnrt* «■* 
M-a/rt -r»v I oufi cvr* v «m/t*v , o^y U* k «jt^nTc 

ecer . tov wi* k ^ £b v/Xi' p« p-^jo- W*fc«( 

Copy of Pauline Epistles, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, 
12th century. Rom, 5 : 21-6 : 7. 



14 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



Mode of 

designating 

manuscripts. 



Lectiona- 
ries. 



Before the books were gathered into one collection, 
they were arranged in four groups : Gospels, Acts and 
Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse. 
Most manuscripts contain only one, or at most two, of 
these groups. For the purpose of reference, uncials 
are distinguished by capital letters of the Latin, Greek, 
or Hebrew alphabets, as B, A, tf. Cursives are desig- 
nated simply by numbers, as Evan. 100, signifying 
"cursive manuscript of the Gospels, No. 100." If 
a cursive manuscript contains more than one of the 
groups above mentioned, it appears in different lists, 
and with a different number in each. Thus, a cursive 
of the fourteenth century, in the British Museum, 
containing all the four groups, is described as Evan. 
498, Acts 198, P. 255, Ap. 97. An uncial like k, 
whose readings run through the whole New Testa- 
ment, is quoted everywhere by the same letter; but 
B, in which the Apocalypse is wanting, is assigned to 
the Codex Basilianus of the Apocalypse (B 2 ). D, in 
the Gospels and Acts, designates Codex Bezse; but 
in the Pauline Epistles, Codex Claromontanus (D 2 ). 
The cursive manuscripts, with a few exceptions, are 
rarely quoted as authorities for the text. Their 
importance is chiefly in showing which of two read- 
ings, where the leading uncials are divided, has been 
adopted in the great mass of later copies. 

In the whole number of manuscripts must be in- 
cluded the Lectionaries. The ordinary manuscripts 
were often adapted for church service by marking the 
beginning and end of each lesson with a note in the 
margin, indicating the time and occasion for reading 
it, and by prefixing to them a Synaxarion, or table of 
lessons in their order ; sometimes also a Menologion, 
or calendar of the immovable festivals and the saints' 
days, with their appropriate lessons. Separate collec- 
tions were also made of lessons from the New Testa- 



NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 15 

ment prescribed to be read during the church, year. 
These lessons are arranged in chronological order, 
without regard to their places in the New Testament, 
like the Gospels and Epistles in the Book of Common 
Prayer. Lectionaries containing lessons from the 
Gospels were called evayyeXca-rdpia or, popularly, 
tvayyiXia. Those containing lessons from the Acts 
and Epistles were termed diroo-ToXoi or 7rpa£a7r6o~ToXoL 
A few, containing lessons from both the Gospels and the 
Acts and Epistles, were styled diroo-roXoevayy eXia. The 
uncial character was, in some cases, retained in these 
collections, after cursive writing had become common, 
so that it is not always easy to fix their date without 
other indications ; but the most of the Lectionaries 
are in the cursive character. There are no extant 
Lectionaries in Greek earlier than the eighth century, 
or earlier than the sixth century in Syriac ; but the 
lectionary system is much older. Their evidence is 
especially important in determining the canonicity 
of a passage, since it is the evidence, not of individ- 
uals, but of churches, and shows that the church in a 
certain district believed the passage to be a part of 
inspired Scripture. 

As parchment was a costly material, an old manu- Palimpsests, 
script was often used for the second time, the original 
writing being erased by means of a sponge, a knife, 
or a piece of pumice-stone, and new matter written 
over it. Such manuscripts are called Palimpsests, or 
Codices Eescripti. A parchment was sometimes used 
three times over. 1 It has been found possible, by the 
application of chemicals, to restore the letters of the 
original manuscript. A notable instance is the restora- A notable 
tion of Codex Ephraemi (C), in the National Library P^mpsest. 
at Paris, in which the works of the Syrian Father, 

1 See Scrivener, Introduction, etc., I, 141. 



16 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

Ephraem, were written over the original New Testa- 
ment text. The original writing was brought to light 
by the librarian, Carl Hase, in 1834-35, by the appli- 
cation of the Giobertine tincture (prussiate of potash). 
It was edited by Tischendorf in 1843-45. 1 

We shall notice the five primary uncials, so called 

from their age and importance. 

Codex Sinai- Codex Sinaiticus (&) : probably about the middle of 

ticus O). |£ e f our | } ] 1 century. Now in the Imperial Library at 

St. Petersburg. It was discovered by Tischendorf in 

1859, in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai. 

The following is Tischendorf s own description of 
the discovery. " On the afternoon of this day (Feb. 
7, 1859) I was taking a walk with the steward of the 
convent in the neighborhood, and as we returned 
toward sunset, he begged me to take some refresh- 
The story of ment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered 
co S very. "kh- e room when, resuming our former subject of con- 

versation, he said, i And I, too, have read a Septuagint ; ' 
and so saying he took down from the corner of the room 
a bulky kind of volume wrapped up in a red cloth, 
and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and dis- 
covered, to my great surprise, not only those very 
fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out 
of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testa- 
ment, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, 
the Epistle of Barnabas, and a part of the Pastor of 

1 On palimpsests, see Scrivener, Introduction, etc., I, 25, 
141 ; Tischendorf, New Testament, III, 366 ; Mrs. Agnes Lewis, 
The Four Gospels translated from the Sinaitic Palimpsest. 
For a full description of the New Testament manuscripts, the 
reader will consult the Prolegomena to Tischendorf's larger 
eighth edition of his Greek Testament, in the third volume, 
prepared by Dr. Caspar R. Gregory, and Scrivener's Introduc- 
tion to the Criticism of the New Testament, I. A compendious 
description will be found in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, 
article " Bible Text," by von Gebhardt. 




W S 



§ t, 



H .2 






NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCBIPTS 17 

Hernias. Eull of joy, which this time I had the self- 
command to conceal from the steward and the rest of 
the community, I asked, as if in a careless way, for 
permission to take the manuscript into my sleeping- 
chamber to look it over more at leisure. ... I knew 
that I held in my hand the most precious biblical 
treasure in existence — a document whose age and im- 
portance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which 
I had ever examined during twenty years' study of 
the subject. . . . Though my lamp was dim and 
the night cold, I sat down at once to transcribe the 
Epistle of Barnabas. For two centuries search has 
been made in vain for the original Greek of the first 
part of this Epistle, which has been known only 
through a very faulty Latin translation. And yet this 
letter, from the end of the second down to the beginning 
of the fourth century, had an extensive authority, 
since many Christians assigned to it and to the Pastor 
of Hermas a place side by side with the inspired 
writings of the New Testament. This was the very 
reason why these two writings were both thus bound 
up with the Sinaitic Bible, the transcription of which 
is to be referred to the first half of the fourth century 
and about the time of the first Christian emperor." x 

The New Testament text of the Sinaitic Codex is Character of 
complete. The original text has been corrected in tnecodex * 
many places. The Eusebian sections are indicated 
in the margin of the Gospels in a hand evidently con- 
temporaneous with the text. The Codex is 13^ inches 
broad by 14|- inches high, and consists of 346|- leaves 
of beautiful vellum, of which 199 contain portions 
of the Septuagint Version, and 147^ the New Testa- 
ment, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the fragment of 
the Shepherd of Hermas. Each page has four col- 

1 See further under Teschendorf in the history of the printed 
text. 

c 



18 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Codex Vati- 
canus (B). 



umns, with forty-eight lines in each column. The 
poetical books of the Old Testament, being written 
stichometrically, admit of only two columns on a page. 
In the order of the books, Paul's Epistles precede the 
Acts. The Epistle to the Hebrews stands with the 
Pauline letters and follows 2 Thessalonians. There 
are no breathings or accents, and marks of punctuation 
are scanty. Words are divided at the end of a line, 
as the k from ov in ovk. The numerous corrections which 
disfigure the Codex are mostly due to later hands of 
the sixth and seventh centuries and later. A few 
appear to have been made by the original scribe. 

Codex Vaticanus (B). Eourth century. Generally 
regarded as slightly older than K. It is in the Vatican 
Library at Eome. Contains the Septuagint Version 
of the Old Testament, with some gaps, and the New 
Testament to Hebrews 9 : 14, inclusive. The Pas- 
toral Epistles, Philemon, and the Apocalypse are lost. 
The Catholic Epistles had followed the Acts. It is a 
quarto volume, arranged in quires of five sheets or ten 
leaves each, and is written on thin vellum made of 
the skins of antelopes. It is 10^ inches high, 10 
inches broad, and 4J thick. It has three columns 
to a page, except in the poetical books of the Old 
Testament, which are written stichometrically, and in 
which there are two columns to a page. Its antiquity 
is attested by the absence of divisions into K^dkaia 
and of sections and canons, instead of which it has a 
scheme of chapters or sections of its own, which seem 
to have been formed for the purpose of reference. A 
Divisions of new section always begins where there is some break 
the text in 9 ^ ^ sense? an( j man y f those in the Gospels consist 
of but one of our modern verses. The Gospel of 
Matthew contains 170 of these divisions, Mark 62, 
Luke 152, and John 80. In the Acts are two sets of 
sections, thirty-six longer and in an older hand, sixty- 



*-* 






5<?o 








c 



h * 

Z 



is 

< ? 
yj z 



T tu u £ *- u g; c S 






C - ~ 



.y t v z 
r >- 



T w u -. *- u ,t. r 

r, £ z. s z s s s 

s^ I- 2 r I 5 ■ < 

'z98<i 

a n >- 5 3 

U|0 I J -< 






z£ 
-< 

u a- 

- 

r < 



y z 
- < 

z < 



< 



£ C c « C 



» ,*n vy \j 



z b 



&< 



■ ^ 



c ° 



^ r ^ = ± •■; s : :. 

< ■ l- 4 - < ~ ; •< - q 



r '. «< y 

in: 

2 >- >- 



Z « 



^5 i|ii 
+§~ 



^ 



T"*/' r- ;L ~ - - Z ae r i: ^ 
^ f •-> £ < fr z yuZ-f- 

£ 2 z - : : <i - y r * 



— — 


U , 2 >• • 


_ 




U -< 


x Z - a z 


-< 


„. 






/ 




w X 


< h z : ~ 




V 










z < 


y -< I § P 


V 


r_ 


y I 


v 2 J r ; 


g 


T- 


< - 


o ^ ? < r 


c 


2 

< 



< u 



~ < z 



- < > 



-< _ 



j|i<0 23 



o ^ 



NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 19 

nine smaller and more recent. Each of these also 
begins after a break in the sense ; but they are quite 
independent of each other, as a larger section will 
sometimes commence in the middle of a smaller, the 
latter not being a subdivision of the former. In the 
Catholic Epistles and in the Pauline Epistles there are 
two sets of sections, but in the Epistles the older sec- 
tions are the more numerous. The breathings and 
accents have been added by a later hand, according 
to Tischendorf and Hort, of the tenth or eleventh 
century. This hand appears to have traced the faint 
lines of the original writing; and the writer, being 
anxious at the same time to represent a critical re- 
vision of the text, left untouched such words or letters 
as he wished to reject. These untouched places enable 
us to see the Codex in its primitive condition. 

Attempts to examine and collate this codex were Editions 
for many years baffled by the custodians of the Vatican of B * 
Library and the authorities of the Eoman Church. 1 
Eoman Catholic scholars undertook the work which 
they refused to allow others to do. An edition by 
Cardinal Mai was issued in 1857, but it was full of 
faults, so that it never could be used with confidence. 
A grudging and limited permission to Tischendorf to 
consult the Codex enabled him to issue, in 1867, an 
edition superior to any that had preceded it. The 
edition of the Xew Testament by Vercellone and 
Cozza appeared in 1868, and was complete and criti- 
cal, though not without errors. A splendid edition 
was issued in 1889, under the care of Abbate Cozza- 
Luzi, in which the entire text was exhibited in photo- 
graph. 

Codex Alexandrinus (A). Fifth century. In the Codex Alex- 
British Museum, where it was placed at the founda- andrinus 

1 See under Tischendorf and Tregelles in the history of the 
printed text. 



20 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Character of 
the codex. 



Capitaliza 
tion and 
divisions 
of A. 



tion of the library of that institution in 1753, having 
previously belonged to the king's private collection 
from the year 1628, when it was sent by Cyril Lucar, 
Patriarch of Constantinople, as a gift to Charles I. 
An old Arabic inscription on the first leaf states that 
it was written by the hand of Thecla the Martyr. 
The Codex is bound in four volumes, three of which 
contain the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament 
with some gaps, amounting to nearly six hundred 
verses. The fourth volume contains the New Testa- 
ment. The whole of Matthew's Gospel to 25 : 6 is 
missing, together with John 6 : 50-8 : 52, and 2 Cor. 
4 : 13-12 : 6. After the Apocalypse is found what 
was until very recently the only known extant copy 
of the first or genuine Epistle of Clement of Eome, 
and a small fragment of a second of suspected authen- 
ticity. It would appear that these two Epistles were 
designed to form a part of the volume of Scripture, 
being represented in the table of contents under the 
head H KAINH AIA0HKH. To these are added the 
eighteen Psalms of Solomon as distinct from Scripture. 
The Codex is in quarto, 12| inches high and 10^ 
broad, and consists of 773 leaves. Each page contains 
two columns of fifty or fifty-one lines each. The 
uncials are of an elegant but simple form, in a uni- 
form hand, though in some places larger than in 
others. The punctuation, which no later hand has 
meddled with, consists merely of a point placed at 
the end of a sentence, usually on a level with the top 
of the preceding letter. A vacant space follows the 
point at the end of a paragraph, the space being 
proportioned to the break in the sense. Capital letters 
of various sizes, written in common ink, are found at 
the beginning of books and sections. These capitals 
stand in the margin entirely outside of the column; 
so that if the section begins in the middle of a line, 



NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 



21 



the capital is postponed until the beginning of the 
next line, the first letter of which is always the capi- 
tal, even though it be in the middle of a word. The 
first line of Mark, the first three of Luke, the first 
verse of John, the opening of the Acts down to Si, 
and so on for other books, are in vermilion. 

This is the first Codex which has Ke$6\aia proper, 
the Ammonian sections and the Eusebian canons 
complete. 

Codex Ephraemi (C). Fifth century. In the National 
Library at Paris. It was brought into France by 
Catherine de' Medici. It is a palimpsest, the ancient 
writing having been removed about the twelfth cen- 
tury in order to transcribe the works of Ephraem, the 
Syrian Father. An attempt to recover the original 
writing by the application of a chemical preparation, 
in 1834, defaced the vellum with stains of various 
colors. The older writing was first noticed nearly two 
centuries ago. A collation of the New Testament 
was made by Wetstein in 1716 ; but the first thorough 
collation was by Teschendorf in 1843. 

The Codex originally contained the whole Greek 
Bible. Only sixty-four leaves remain of the Old 
Testament. Of the New Testament ninety-three 
leaves are missing. Those which remain contain 
portions of every book except 1 Thessalonians and 
2 John. There is but one column to a page, con- 
taining from forty to forty-six lines. The characters 
are larger and more elaborate than those of A or B. 
The punctuation resembles that of A. The Ammonian 
sections stand in the margin, but the chemical appli- 
cations have not revealed the Eusebian canons. 
These canons were commonly noted in vermilion, and 
lines of the text written in vermilion have been com- 
pletely obliterated. There is no trace of chapters in 
the Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse. In the Gospels the 



Codex 

Ephraemi 

(C). 



Contents 
of C 



22 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

Kecj>aXaia are not placed in the upper margin of the 
page as in A, but a list of their tltXol preceded each 
Gospel. Two correctors have handled the Codex, 
possibly of the sixth and ninth centuries. 

Codex Bezse Codex Bezae or Cantabrigiensis (D). Sixth century. 
In the Library of the University of Cambridge. It is 
named from Theodore Beza, who presented it to the 
University in 1581. It contains only the Gospels and 
Acts, and is the first example of a copy in two lan- 
guages, giving a Latin version in addition to the 
Greek text. It is marked by numerous interpolations 
and departures from the normal text, and on this 
account some critics refuse to place it among the 
primary uncials. It originally contained the Catholic 
Epistles between the Gospels and the Acts, and in 
the Latin translation a few verses of 3 John remain, 
followed by the words "Epistulae Johannis iii 
explicit, incipit actus Apostolorum," as if the Epistle 
of Jude were displaced or wanting. It is a quarto 
volume, ten inches high and eight broad, with 
one column on a page, the Greek text being on the 
left-hand page, and the Latin facing it on the right. 
There are thirty-three lines on every page, the matter 
being arranged stichometrically. It has not the 
Eusebian canons, but only the Ammonian sections. 
It has suffered at the hands of nine or ten different 
revisers. The margins of the church lessons for 
Saturday and Sunday contain liturgical notes in thick 

Divisions letters. A few others for the great feasts and fast 
days occur, and, in a hand of about the twelfth cen- 
tury, lessons for the festivals of St. George and St. 
Dionysius, the patron saints of England and France. 1 

1 Among the secondary uncials the most important are : D2, 
Codex Claromontanus, second half of the sixth century, National 
Library at Paris, Greek and Latin, contains the Pauline Epistles 
and the Epistle to the Hebrews. E 2 , sixth century, Codex Lau- 



NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCBIPT8 2S 

dianus, Bodleian Library at Oxford, Greek and Latin, contains 
the Acts. L, Codex Kegius, eighth century, National Library 
at Paris, contains the Gospels complete : a very ancient text. 
T a , Codex Borgianus, fifth century, Propaganda at Rome, Greek 
and Coptic, contains 179 verses of Luke and John. Dr. Hort 
ranks it next after B and K for excellence of text. Z, Codex 
Dublinensis, palimpsest, sixth century, Trinity College, Dub- 
lin, contains 295 verses of Matthew, in twenty-two fragments ; 
agrees with K rather than with B. A, Codex Sangallensis, ninth 
century, library of the monastery of St. Gall in the northeast 
of Switzerland, Gospels nearly complete ; a Latin interlinear 
translation. The text in Mark is of the same type as L 
S, Codex Zacynthius, eighth century, palimpsest, in the Library 
of the British and Foreign Bible Society in London, contains 
342 verses of Luke's Gospel. Dr. Hort places it next to T a . 
A continuous commentary by different authors (catena) accom- 
panies the text. Scrivener says this is the earliest known — 
indeed, the only — uncial furnished with a catena. 



CHAPTER III 



VERSIONS 



Versions. 



Worth of 
versions in 
textual 
criticism. 



Versions of the New Testament writings were de- 
manded early by the rapid spread of the Gospel to the 
Syrians, Egyptians, and the Latin-speaking people 
of Africa, Italy, and the west of Europe. Transla- 
tions into Syriac and Latin were made in the second 
century, and later into Coptic, when Alexander's con- 
quest opened Egypt. 

Versions are important in textual criticism because 
they are earlier than extant manuscripts, because their 
ages are known, and because they are, generally, au- 
thorised translations, made either by a body of men, 
or by a single recognised and accepted authority. 
Versions may indeed have suffered in the course of 
transmission, but when the ancient versions accord, it 
is reasonable to conclude that in such passages they 
have not suffered. 

On the other hand, their evidence is less direct than 
that of manuscripts, since we must translate them 
back into their originals in any case of doubt. They 
have been transmitted in manuscripts, just as the 
Greek original has been, and are liable to the same 
accidents which have affected the Greek text. They 
have undergone similar textual corruptions. No man- 
uscript copy of a version is earlier than the fourth 
century. Therefore it may be found as difficult to 
arrive at the primitive text of a version as of the 
Greek original. Some versions, moreover, are second- 

24 



VEBSIONS 25 

ary, derived from other versions of the Greek ; and 
some merely give the sense, without attempting ver- 
bal renderings. 

Versions by themselves, therefore, cannot establish Office of a 
any reading. They can only supplement manuscript critiSsm m 
evidence. If an ancient version accords with a very 
early Greek manuscript in some particular reading, 
the evidence is weighty as to the early prevalence of 
that reading ; and if this testimony is supported by a 
second version, its weight is greatly increased. If we 
are sure of the original words of a Syriac or Latin 
translation, we may have a reasonably correct idea of 
the words of a Greek text extant in the first half of 
the second century. On the omission of words and 
clauses the testimony of versions is as clear as that of 
original manuscripts. It must be noted, further, that 
the value of a version's evidence at certain points will 
depend somewhat on the character of the language 
into which the Greek is rendered. For instance, a 
Latin version would seldom testify to the presence or 
absence of the Greek article. 

i. Latin Versions. — A comparison of the Old Latin Latin yer- 
texts, previous to Jerome's version, indicates that they S10ns * 
all are offshoots from one, or at most two, parent 
stocks. 

One of the several recensions current toward the 
end of the fourth century was known as Itala. It 
was for a long time thought that it originated in 
Africa in the second half of the second century. 1 

Three groups of Old Latin manuscripts are recog- 
nised, each representing a distinct type of text : (1) 
African, agreeing generally with quotations in Ter- 

1 See Cardinal Wiseman, Two Lectures on Some Parts of the 
Controversy concerning 1 John 5 : 7. Republished in Essays 
on Various Subjects, I, 1853, Rome. Later scholarship has 
become less confident as to the African origin. 



26 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Jerome's 
revision. 



tullian and Cyprian ; (2) European, either independent 
or based on the African ; (3) Italian, formed on the 
European type, and revised with the aid of later 
Greek manuscripts. Many of the Old Latin manu- 
scripts, however, present texts which cannot be as- 
signed to either of these classes. At the end of the 
fourth century there was so much variation in exist- 
ing texts that Jerome was requested by Pope Damasus 
to undertake a revision. His labour was expended 
chiefly on the Old Testament. In all parts of the 
New Testament, except the Gospels, his revision was 
cursory. The texts which precede his version remain 
to us only in fragments, and are to be gathered, largely, 
from citations by the Fathers. These patristic cita- 
tions may be found, not only in writings composed 
before Jerome, but also in later compositions, since a 
long time elapsed before Jerome's work obtained gen- 
eral currency. Down to the end of the sixth century 
different texts were used at the writer's pleasure. Ac- 
cordingly we find in some exclusively an old text, in 
others only Jerome's version, while others again em- 
ploy both. 1 

1 Some idea of the differences may be gained from the follow- 
ing parallels, the variations from Jerome's version being desig- 
nated by italics : — 

Romans io : 9 

Jerome Iben^eus Hilary of Poitiers 



qui* si confitearis in 
ore tuo Dominum Je- 
sum, et in corde tuo cre- 
dideris quod Deus ilium 
suscitavit a mortuis, sal- 
yus oris. 



Jerome 
Ideo anim et tributa 
pwestatis ; mlnistri enim 
Dei sunt, in hoo ipsum 

eervienUs. 



quoniam si confitea- 
ris in ore tuo Dominum 
Jesum et credideris 
in corde tuo quoniam 
Deus ilium excitavit a 
mortuis, salvus eris. 

Romans 13 : 6 

IREN.EU8 

Propter hoc enim et 
tributa penditis ; mlni- 
stri enim Dei sunt in hoc 
Ipsum servientes. 



quia si confessusfu- 
eris in ore tuo, quia 
Dominu8 Jesus est, et 
credideris in corde tuo, 
quia Deus ilium suscita- 
vit a mortuis, salvaoeris. 



Augustine 
Ideo (elsewhere prop- 
ter hoc) enim et tributa 
praestatis ; ministri enim 
Dei in hoc ipsum perse- 
terantes. 



VERSIONS 



27 



A second revision was attempted by Alcuin (735- 
804), and a third by Sixtus V (1590). The modern 
authorised Vulgate is the Clementine (1592), which 
is substantially Jerome's version. The Old Latin 
version of the New Testament was translated directly 
from the original Greek. The Vulgate was only a re- 
vision of the Old Latin. But the Old Latin was made 
long before any of our existing Greek manuscripts, Value of the 
and takes us back almost to within a generation of the version" 1 
time at which the New Testament books were com- 
posed. The Old Latin Version is therefore one of the 
most interesting and valuable evidences which we pos- 
sess for the condition of the New Testament text in 
the earliest times. 1 



Jeeome 

sed semet ipsum exin- 
anivit, formam servi ac- 
cipiens, in similitudinem 
hominumfactus et habitu 
inventus ut homo. 



Jeeome 

Juvenes similiter hor- 
tare, ut sobrii sint. In 
omnibus te ipsum prsebe 
exemplum bonorum ope- 
rum, in doctrina, in in- 
teg-ritate, in gravitate, in 
sermone sano et irrepre- 
hensibili, ut is qui ex 
adverso est vereatur, ni- 
hil habens malum dicere 
de nobis. 



Philippians 2 : 7 

Teetullian 

exhausit semet ip- 
sum accepta effigie servi 
et in similitudine ho- 
minis et figura inven- 
tus ut homo. 

Titus 2 : 6-8 

LUCTEEB OF CAGLIAEI 

Juvenes similiter hor- 
tare, ut sobrii sint in 
omnibus, (note difference 
of punctuation,) per om- 
nia te ipsum formam 
prcebens bonorum ope- 
rum in doctrina (punc- 
tuation), in integritate, 
in gravitate, in sermone 
sanum, irreprehensibi- 
lem, ut adversarius re- 
Qe>reatur nihil habens 
quid dicere malum de 
nobis. 



NOVATIAN 

semet ipsum exinani- 
vit formam servi accipi- 
ens, in similitudine ho- 
minum factus et habitu 
inventus ut homo. 



Ambbosiasteb 

Juniores similiter 
hortare, continentes esse 
per omnia, temet ipsum 
prcebens exemplum bon- 
orum operum in doc- 
trina, in integritate, in 
gravitate, verbum sa- 
num, irreprehensibile, 
ut is qui e diverso est 
revereatur nihil habens 
dicere de nobis dignum 
reprehensione. 



1 On Latin Versions, see : H. Ronsch, Das N. T. Tertullians, 
etc., Leipzig, 1871. Id. Itala und Vulgata, 2 Ausg., Marburg, 
1875. Wordsworth and White, Novum Testamentum Latine, 
Oxford, 1887. Wordsworth, White, and Sanday, Old Latin 
Biblical Texts, Oxford, 1888. F. C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and 



28 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Syriac ver- 
sions. 



The 
Peshitto. 



The 

Peshitto a 
revision. 



The Cure- 
tonian. 



2. Syriac Versions. — The gospel was first preached 
in the East. The nearness of Syria to Judaea, and 
the early growth of the church at Antioch and Damas- 
cus, must have produced an early demand for a ren- 
dering into the Syriac tongue. Of extant versions 
there are five: Peshitto, Curetonian, Philoxenian and 
Harclean, Jerusalem or Palestinian, and the Lewis 
Palimpsest. 

The Peshitto is the great standard version of the 
Syriac church, made not later than the third century. 
It is known to us in 177 manuscripts, most of which 
are in the British Museum. Two of these are of the 
fifth century; at least a dozen more not later than the 
sixth century. The Peshitto does not contain those 
books of the New Testament which were the last to 
be generally accepted, as 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, 
and the Apocalypse. 

About the beginning of the present century Gries- 
bach and Hug asserted that the Peshitto was not the 
original Syriac, but a revision of an earlier version. 
In 1842 eighty leaves of a copy of the Gospels in 
Syriac were discovered in the Syrian Convent of St. 
Mary in the Mtrian Desert. These contained a dif- 
ferent text from those of any manuscripts previously 
known. They were edited by Dr. Cureton of the 
British Museum, who maintained that they exhibited 
the very words of the Lord's discourses in the lan- 
guage in which they were originally spoken. The 
manuscript is of the fifth century, practically con- 
temporary with the earliest existing manuscripts of 



the Itala, Cambridge Texts and Studies, IV, 3, Cambridge, 1896. 
S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siecles 
du Moyen Age, Paris, 1893. D. F. Fritzsche, article " Latein- 
ische Bibeltibersetzungen," in Herzog's ReaUEncyklopadie. On 
the Vetus Latina of Paul's Epistles : Ziegler, Die Lateinischen 
Bibelubersetzungen vor Hieronymus> Miinchen, 1879. 



VERSIONS 



29 



Various 
opinions as 
to the Cure- 

tonian. 



the Peshitto. Cureton, however, argued that the 
character of the translation showed that its original 
must have been earlier than the original of the Pesh- 
itto, and that the Peshitto was the revision of the Old 
Syriac. 1 

Cureton's view has been hotly contested. The ques- 
tion is, whether the Curetonian, which is less accurate, 
scholarly, and smooth than the Peshitto, is a corrup- 
tion of the latter, or whether, as Cureton maintained, 
the Peshitto is a revision of the Curetonian. It may 
be said that it is unlikely that an accurate version like 
the Peshitto should have been deliberately altered for 
the worse, and that a less accurate, independent ver- 
sion should have passed into circulation. The affini- 
ties of the Curetonian version are with the older forms 
of the Greek text, while those of the Peshitto are with 
its later forms. Tischendorf assigns the Curetonian 
to the middle, the Peshitto to the end, of the second 
century. Others assign the Peshitto to the end of the 
third or beginning of the fourth. Dr. Hort says that 
the Curetonian text is not only itself a valuable au- 
thority, but renders the comparatively late and revised 
character of the Peshitto a matter of certainty. 

The question was reopened by the discovery, in The Lewis 
1892, by Mrs. Agnes Lewis, in the Convent of St. 
Catherine on Mt. Sinai, of a Syriac palimpsest of the 
four Gospels. The following is Mrs. Lewis's own ac- 
count of her discovery: 2 — 

"In the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mt. Sinai, a 
chest containing ancient Syriac manuscripts has lain 



palimpsest. 



1 The manuscript of the Curetonian Syriac Gospels contains 
Matt. 1-8 : 22 ; 10 : 31-23 : 25. Of Mark, 16 : 17-20. Of John, 

1 : 1-42 ; 3:6-7: 37, and fragments of 14 : 11-29. Of Luke, 

2 : 48-3 : 16 ; 7 : 33-15 : 21 ; 17 : 24-24 : 44. 

2 The Four Gospels translated from the Sinaitic Palimpsest, 
London, 1894. 



30 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

undisturbed for centuries. Professor Palmer saw its 
contents in 1868, and thus refers to them : ( Among a 
pile of patristic and other works of no great age or 
interest are some curious old Syriac books, and one or 
two palimpsests. My hurried visit prevented me from 
examining these with any great care ; but they would 
no doubt well repay investigation.' 
First exam- " The first real examination of these books was re- 
thepalimp- served for Mr - Mendel Harris, who, in 1889, after a 
sest. stay of fifteen days at the Convent, contrived to dis- 

arm all prejudices, and to obtain access to these hid- 
den treasures. . . . 

"Amongst the ancient volumes which were produced 
for our inspection by the late Hegoumenos and Libra- 
rian, Father Galakteon, was a thick volume, whose 
leaves had evidently been unturned for centuries, as 
they could be separated only by manipulation with 
the fingers, and in some cases only by the steam of a 
kettle. A single glance told me that the book was a 
palimpsest, and I soon ascertained that the upper 
writing was a very entertaining account of the lives 
of women saints, and that its date was, as I then read 
it, a thousand and nine years after Alexander, that is, 
a.d. 697. After the word 'nine' there is a small hole 
in the vellum, which, as Mr. Eendel Harris believes, 
occupies the place of the syllable corresponding to 
the <ty' of ( ninety,' and the date is thus probably 
a.d. 778. 

" I then examined the more ancient writing which 
lay beneath this. It is in two columns, one of which 
is always projected onto the margin, and it is written 
in the same character, but in a much smaller hand 
than the later writing which covers it. It was also 
slightly reddish in colour. As I glanced down the 
margin for over 280 pages, every word that I could 
decipher was from the Gospels, and so were the lines 



VERSIONS 31 

which at the top or bottom of several pages were free 
of the later writing. And few, indeed, were the pages 
which had not a distinct title, such as i Evangelium/ 
' da Mathai/ ' da Marcus/ or c da Luca.' w 

Mrs. Lewis photographed the pages which were The work of 
shown to the late Professor Bensley, who was then s * Lewls - 
engaged on a critical edition of the Curetonian Gos- 
pels. He pronounced the text to be of the same type 
as the Curetonian. 

A second expedition to the Sinaitic convent was 
organised, in which Mrs. Lewis was accompanied by 
Professor Bensley, J. Eendel Harris, and F. C. Burkitt. 
In forty days the text of the Gospels was transcribed 
directly from the manuscript, and Mrs. Lewis suc- 
ceeded in restoring much of the faded writing by 
means of a chemical agent. 

The manuscript is written on strong vellum. The Appearance 
text of the Gospels underlies about 284 pages on 142 ^p* manu " 
leaves of the Martyrology. In addition to these leaves 
the scribe made use of four leaves from a fourth-cen- 
tury manuscript of the Gospels, many leaves from a 
volume of Syriac apocrypha, containing the Acts of 
Thomas and the Bepose of Mary, and other leaves 
from a Greek manuscript, not identified. 

The text presents a number of variations from the Variations 
standard Greek text, but most of them are curious and sc^pt manU " 
interesting rather than important. There are some 
transpositions, as in John 18, where the questioning 
by the High Priest follows immediately upon Christ's 
being led to him, and Peter's three denials are grouped 
in a consecutive narrative in the succeeding verses. In 
Luke 22 there is a fresh arrangement of the narra- 
tive from ver. 17 to ver. 21, by which it is made more 
compact and orderly. The interpolation at Luke 23 : 
48, which occurs only in Codex Bezae, appears here: 
" Woe unto us, what hath befallen us ? Woe unto us 



32 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

for our sins." Matt. 1 : 16 reads, " Joseph, begat Jesus 
who is called Christ," and in ver. 25 the words " and 
knew her not until " are omitted. Yet Matt. 1 : 18 
is retained, "When they had not come near to one 
another, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." 
The last twelve verses of Mark are omitted. 
Relations to The question of the relation of this Codex to other 
Versious naC Syriac Versions is far too technical to be discussed 
here. An important point is the relation of the Cure- 
tonian Version to the Diatessaron or Gospel Harmony 
of Tatian, composed about 160 a.d., and which was 
charged with omitting whatever went to show that 
Jesus was born of the seed of David according to the 
flesh. The whole problem presents the following 
factors : (1) An early Syriac Version represented by 
the Curetonian, but how early ? (2) The Peshitto. Is 
it a revision of an earlier version, and if so, is that 
version the Curetonian? (3) Tatian's Diatessaron. 
Was it originally written in Syriac ? Was it earlier 
than the Curetonian ? To quote Mrs. Lewis, " Was the 
Diatessaron compiled in the second century from the 
version contained in the Curetonian and in the Sinai 
Codices, or did that version come into existence only 
in the fourth century, when the use of the Diatessaron 
was discontinued ? " (4) The Lewis Palimpsest. It is 
no doubt earlier than the Peshitto. Is it earlier than 
the Curetonian ? It does not perfectly coincide with 
the Curetonian. Eb. Nestle and J. Eendel Harris 
both hold that it represents the very first attempt to 
render the Gospel into Syriac, and thus both the Dia- 
tessaron and the Curetonian are revisions of it. 1 

1 See G. Salmon, Some Criticism of the Text of the New 
Testament, 75. 

On Syriac Versions, see : Th. Zahn, Geschichte der neutesta- 
mentlichen Kanons, Leipzig, 1888, 1891. Eb. Nestle, article 
"Syrische Bibelttbersetzungen," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie ; 



VERSIONS 



33 



The Philoxenian Version was made by Philoxenus, 
Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria, in 508 ; 
probably with a view to provide a more literal version 
than the Peshitto. Few traces of it, in its original 
form, remain. 1 

Improperly confounded with the Philoxenian is a 
version made at Alexandria, in 616, by Thomas of 
Harkel, also Bishop of Mabug. It was formerly re- 
garded as a revision of the Philoxenian; but the 
opinion has gained ground that it was substantially 
a new version. It is known as the Harclean Syriac, 
and is characterised by slavish adherence to the Greek, 
even to the destruction of the Syriac idiom. 

The Jerusalem Syriac exists only in fragments, and 
differs in dialect from all the other versions. It is 
believed to have been made in the fifth or sixth century, 
and to have been used exclusively in Palestine. It 
was discovered at the end of the last century in the 
Vatican Library, and was edited in 1861-64. Since 



Philoxenian 
and Har- 
clean Syriac. 



Jerusalem 
and Karka- 
phensian 
Syriac. 



full catalogue of literature. Baethgen, Evangelienfragmente. 
Der griechische Text des Curetonschen Syrers wiederhergestellt, 
Leipzig, 1885. G. H. Gwilliam, The Material for the Criticism 
of the Peshitto New Testament, Studio, Biblica, Oxford, 1891, 
III, 47-104. R. L. Bensley, J. Rendel Harris, F. C. Burkitt, 
The Four Gospels in Syriac, transcribed from the Sinaitic 
Palimpsest, Cambridge, 1894. Agnes Smith Lewis, The Four 
Gospels translated from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, 
London, 1894. Tischendorf, New Testament, III, 806 f£. ; list 
of earlier articles on the Curetonian Syriac. Scrivener, Intro- 
duction, etc., II, 6 ff. 

On Tatian's Diatessaron, see A. Harnack, Geschichte der 
altchristlichen Litteratur, Th. I, S. 485 ff. J. Hamlyn Hill, 
The Earliest Life of Christ, being the Diatessaron of Tatian> 
Clarks, Edinburgh, 1894. 

1 Unless the manuscript brought to light by Dr. Isaac H. 
Hall of New York, in 1876, can be shown, as is claimed, to 
be the unrevised Philoxenian. This manuscript is now in 
the library of Union Theological Seminary, New York. 






34 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



then fragments of the Gospels and Acts have been 
found in the British Museum and at St. Petersburg, 
and two additional lectionaries and fragments of the 
Pauline Epistles in the Bodleian at Oxford and at Mt. 
Sinai. Two more lectionaries have been discovered at 
Mt. Sinai by Mrs. Lewis. 1 

What is called the Karkaphensian Syriac is not a 
continuous version, but a collection of passages on 
which annotations have been made, dealing with ques- 
tions of spelling and pronunciation. 

3. Egyptian Versions. — The language used by the 
natives of Egypt at the time when the Bible was first 
translated for their use, is called Coptic. It was allied 
to the Demotic or vulgar language, so called to distin- 
guish it from the Hieratic or priestly language. The 
Demotic writing contained a mixture of alphabetic 
signs, each of which represented a single sound, with 
other signs representing syllables, and others not pho- 
netic but pictorial. With the entrance of Christianity 
into Egypt a new and strictly phonetic alphabet was 
introduced, the characters being adopted from the 
Greek alphabet. 

We are acquainted with five Egyptian Versions, of 
which only three need be mentioned : the Memphitic 
or Bahiric; the Thebaic or Sahidic; the Bashmuric. 
The Memphitic was current in Northern Egypt. It 
was the most literary dialect of the Egyptian language, 
and is the Coptic of to-day, so far as the language still 
exists. Only in the Bahiric are complete copies of the 
New Testament still extant. All the other Coptic ver- 
sions exist only in fragments. The oldest and best 
manuscript (Oxford, Gospels) is of the latter part of 
the twelfth century. It is a good and careful trans- 

1 See J. Rendel Harris, Biblical Fragments from Mt. Sinai. 
G. H. Gwilliam, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, I, 5, 
1893 ; 9, 1896. 



VERSIONS 35 

lation. It did not originally include the Apocalypse. 
The Thebaic was current in Southern Egypt. It exists 
only in fragments, but these are very numerous, espe- 
cially at Paris. The fragments, if combined, would 
compose a nearly complete New Testament, with con- 
siderable portions of the Old Testament. It is prob- 
ably later than the Bahiric. The language is less 
polished, and the text not so pure. The Bashinuric 
was an adaptation of the Thebaic, in the dialect of 
herdsmen living in the Nile Delta. Only a few frag- 
ments remain, covering about three hundred verses of 
the Fourth Gospel, and five verses of the Pauline 
Epistles. 

For the JSthiopic, Armenian, and Gothic Versions, ^thiopic, 
the reader may consult Teschendorf's New Testament, an^GtotSc 
III, and Scrivener's " Introduction," etc. A tenth- Versions, 
century manuscript of the Armenian version is inter- 
esting as containing the last twelve verses of Mark's 
Gospel, with a heading stating that they are " of the 
Elder Aristion." One Aristion is mentioned by Papias The Elder 
as having been a disciple of the Lord. 

If the writer of these verses could be identified with- 
out doubt as a disciple of the Lord, the fact would 
naturally have an important bearing on the much- 
vexed question of the authenticity of the passage. 
But such identification is far from positive. 1 

1 See Eusebius, H. E., Ill, 39. 

The Gothic Version of the Gospels may be seen in Bosworth 
and Waring's Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Col- 
umns. For an interesting treatment of Ulfilas, the author of 
the Gothic Version, see T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, 
I, Pt. I, 80 ff. 

On Egyptian Versions, see J. B. Lightfoot, in Scrivener's 
Introduction, 4th ed. II, 91-144. Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 
859 ff. 



Aristion. 



' 



CHAPTEE IV 



PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 



Imperfec- 
tion of 
patristic 
texts. 



The third source of textual evidence is furnished by 
quotations from the Greek Testament by other writers, 
especially the Church Fathers. This class of evidence 
is styled " the Evidence of Patristic Quotation." It 
has a certain value, but the value is limited or quali- 
fied by numerous considerations. While it is probable 
that nearly the whole substance of New Testament 
teaching could be recovered from the Patristic writ- 
ings, the same cannot be said of the text. The text of 
many of the Fathers is itself in an imperfect state. 
" It is a shame," says Dr. Nestle, " that the most im- 
portant Fathers are not yet before us in proper edi- 
tions." Dr. Sanday says : " The field of the patristic 
writings needs to be thoroughly overhauled. What 
makes this the more urgent is that where the text has 
not been critically tested, the quotations from the 
Bible are the first to suffer. The scribes were con- 
stantly in the habit of substituting the text with which 
they were themselves familiar for that which they 
found before them in the manuscript. So that what 
we have very frequently is, not the words of the 
Father as they were originally written, but simply the 
late Byzantine or Vulgate text current in the Middle 
Ages when the manuscript was copied." * 

1 Expositor, 1st Ser. , XI, 171. The Vienna Academy has been 
issuing, since 1867, a Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum 
Latinorum, which already amounts to fifty volumes ; and the 

36 



PATBISTIC QUOTATIONS 37 

The habits of the Fathers in quotation were very Patristic 
loose. Having no concordances or indices, or any- quotation, 
thing resembling the modern apparatus for facilitating 
reference, and often no manuscript, they were fre- 
quently compelled to rely upon memory for their cita- 
tions. Quoting from memory explains what we so 
often find, - — combinations of different passages, trans- 
positions, and sense-renderings. Though a full sum- 
mary of the whole gospel life could be composed from 
the quotations of Justin Martyr, his quotations are 
careless. He quotes the same passage differently on 
different occasions. Although he cites written docu- 
ments, he often quotes from memory, and interweaves 
words which are given separately by the Synoptists. 
He condenses, combines, and transposes the language 
of the Lord as recorded in the Gospel records. Take, 
for example, Matt. 5 : 22, 39, 40, 41, and Luke 6 : 29. 
In Justin, 1 Apol. XVI, we read tw tvtttovti <rov tyjv 
cnayova irapeye koli tyjv aXXrjv, kcu tov alpovra crov tov \iT(ava 

ff TO IjJLOLTLOV fJLYJ K(l)\v<TY]$. *Os §€ aV OpyidOfj eVO^OS i(TTLV €t? 

to Trvp, ttclvti Se ayyapcvovTt ore /jllXlov olkoXovOyjctov. Here 
we have several verses massed, apparently from two 
Evangelists. Luke is literally followed in the first 
nine words. The order of the Gospel is not observed, 
and the sense is changed in the words about the coat 
and the cloke. 

Similarly Matt. 5 : 46 ; comp. Luke 6 : 27. Justin, 
1 Apol. XV : et aycnraTe tovs dya7rwras vfxas, tl Kaivbv 
7rotetrc ; kcu yap oi 7ropvoi tovto ttoiovctlv. Here, instead of 
" What reward have ye ? n Justin has " What new thing 
do ye do ? " For " publicans " he gives " f ornicators." 

Again, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. Ill, 4, 36, 
where Matt. 5 : 16 is given tcl dyaOa v^v Ipya Aa//,i//aTa), 
" Let your good works shine." 

Berlin Academy has in process an edition of the Ante-Nicene 
Church Teachers, 



88 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Apostolic 
Fathers not 
valuable in 
Scripture 
quotation. 



Inaccurate 
citation. 



The Apostolic Fathers are of little value for patris- 
tic quotation, since they do not so much quote as blend 
the language of the New Testament with their own. 
Fragments of most of the canonical Epistles are em- 
bedded in their writings, and their diction is more or 
less coloured by that of the apostolic books/ and differ- 
ent passages are combined. 2 

It is possible that, in some cases, the writers do not 
intend to quote, but merely to use the words loosely 
by way of allusion. But often, even when quotation 
is intended, the citation is inaccurate. To take a sin- 
gle instance, Clement of Rome was familiar with the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and references to it occur fre- 
quently in his letter to the Corinthians ; but in his ci- 
tation of Heb. 1:3, 4, in Ch. 36, for Sd^s " glory," 

1 For example, see Ignatius, Magn. X, viripdeade odv tt\v /ca/cV 
£6/jlt]p tt]p 7ra\aLwde?(rav /cat ivo^laaa-av, /cat /xera/3dXecr0e els vkav 
frjMv 8s i<TTLv'lt](rovs Xpiards, " Put away the vile leaven which 
hath waxed stale and sour, and betake yourselves to the new 
leaven which is Jesus Christ.' ' Compare 1 Cor. 5 : 7. 

Ignatius to Polycarp, I, irdvTwv dv^xov kv dydirrj, " Suffer all 
in love. ' ' Compare Eph. 4 : 2. 

Ignatius to Polycarp, II, (ppbvi/mos yivov us 6 8<pis kv ira<riv /cat 
d/c^patos etVaet <bs ij -rrepuTTepd, " Become thou prudent as the ser- 
pent in all things, and forever guileless as the dove." Compare 
Matt. x. 16. 

2 Thus Ignatius, Philad. VII, (rb irvevfxa) oldev yap irbdev 
epxcrai Kal irov virdyei, Kal tol Kpvirrd kXeyxei, "It (the Spirit) 
knoweth whence it cometh and where it goeth, and searcheth 
out the hidden things." Here John 3 : 8 and 1 Cor. 2 : 10 are 
blended. 

Polycarp to the Philippians, I, bv yjyeipev 6 debs XtVas ras <b8i- 
vas rod q,8ov • els bv ovk Ibbvres 7rt<rretfere x a P? d^e/cXaX^ry Kal 
Sedo^aa-fxhrj els rjv 7roXXoi kiridvfAovviv el<Te\0e?v. The quotation 
from Acts 2 : 24 is inexact, u Whom God raised up, having 
loosed the pains of Hades." With this are combined a loose 
quotation from 1 Pet. 1:8, u In whom, not having seen, ye be- 
lieve with joy unspeakable and full of glory " ; also an adapta- 
tion of 1 Pet. 1 : 12, u into which many desire to enter." 



PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 39 

we have /xeyaAwo-rvT?? "majesty " ; for KpdrTuv " better," 
/xct^wv " greater " ; and nap avrovs " than they n is 
omitted. 

Renderings where the sense is given without strict 
regard to the text are found frequently in Irenaeus, 
who is usually careful in quotation. He changes the 
syntax, or uses different words intended as equivalents, 
as €vxapLcrTr}<T€v for evXoyrjcrev in Luke 2 : 28 ; clkoXovOc? /xot 
for !px €Tat ottlcto) [jlov, in Luke 14 : 27 ; ireirXoan/ffiivov for 
aTToAaAo's in Luke 15 : 4. Similarly Origen, Cont. Cels. 
8 : 43, gives the equivalent of Eph. 2 : 12 without 
exact quotation, rovs $evovs tujv Sca^Kwv rov Oeov Kal 
olWotplovs tu)v evayyeXiw. 

It is quite possible that a Father may have shaped Influence of 
a passage to fit his view of a disputed point. Hence, ^^ aatoc 
passages which bear upon great doctrinal controversies 
must be examined to see whether they exhibit traces 
of intentional alteration in the interest of doctrinal 
bias. On the whole, there is little of this. The worst 
that can be charged, in the great majority of cases, is 
a tendency, where two readings exist, to prefer the one 
which makes for the writer's view. Some other cases 
may be set down to ignorance of the principles of 
textual criticism. Thus Tertullian castigates Marcion 
for substituting Sta/xeotoyW "'division" for fxdxaLpav 
"a sword," in Luke 12:51. "Marcion," he says, 
"must needs alter, as if a sword could do anything 
but divide." But Marcion was right, and Tertullian, 
quoting from memory, had in mind the parallel pas- 
sage in Matt. 10 : 34. 1 

Again, Tertullian stigmatises the Valentinians as 
adulterators for reading, in John 1 : 13, ol iyewyOrjaav, 
"which ivere born." The correct reading, he main- 
tains, is os iytwrjOrj, " who was born," and the refer- 

1 Tert. Adv. Marc. IV, 2. 



I 



40 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Value of 
patristic 
quotations 
in fixing 
dates of 
readings. 



Evidence 
of patristic 
quotation to 
be cautious- 
ly used. 



ence is to Christ. But the reading of the Valentinians 
was correct, and Tertullian's reading was absurd, as 
the context shows. 

Similarly, Ambrose charged the Arians with erasing 
from the text of John 3 : 6, the words, " because the 
Spirit is God and is born of God," in order to support 
their denial of the deity of the Holy Ghost. But 
Ambrose did not know that these words were a gloss 
which had been incorporated into the western text, 
and that therefore the Arians were right in omit- 
ting it. 

Patristic quotations have a real value in enabling 
us to fix, at least approximately, the dates at which 
certain readings are found. Between a.d. 170 and 
250 we have a number of voluminous writers ; and in 
the extant remains of Origen alone the greater part of 
the New Testament is quoted. On the other hand, the 
dates of the earliest manuscripts and of some of the 
versions cannot be fixed with absolute certainty, and 
the dates of the texts which they contain are still 
more uncertain. Yet it is to be remembered that, in 
case of a disagreement between patristic evidence and 
manuscript authority, the early date of a Father is no 
guarantee for the value of his evidence, because, con- 
temporary with the earliest Fathers, we have a large 
amount of textual corruption. 

It is therefore evident that the testimony of the 
Fathers to the New Testament text is to be received 
with great caution, and not without the support of the 
oldest manuscripts and the versions. Where these 
agree with patristic testimony, the conclusion is as 
nearly decisive as it is possible to reach. A striking 
instance of such agreement appears in the case of the 
reading in Matt. 19 : 17 : ri /xe epwras irepl rov ayaOov ; 
" Why dost thou ask me about the good ? " as against 
ri fxe Xiyeis ayadov ; " Why callest thou me good ? " 



PATBISTIC QUOTATIONS 41 

u The critic must be sure (1) that he has the true text Specific 
of his author before him ; (2) what passage it is that cautions - 
the author is quoting (and this is a point about which 
it is very possible to make mistakes); (3) that the 
quotation is deliberately taken from a manuscript and 
not made freely from memory and intended rather as 
an allusion than a quotation; and (4) what precise 
reading it was that the manuscript presented. In 
order to be clear on these points, every single instance 
of supposed quotation has to be weighed carefully 
with its context, and only the sifted results of a most 
extended study can be admitted into the critical ap- 
paratus." 1 

The most important sources of this kind of evidence 
are the writings of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, 
Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Tertul- 
lian, Cyprian, Eusebius, and Jerome. 2 

1 Sanday, Expositor, 1st Ser., XI, 170. 

2 On Patristic quotations, see G. N. Bonwetsch and H. Ache- 
lis, Die christliche griechische Schriftsteller vor Eusebius, Kir- 
chenvater- Commission der Berliner Academic, Bd. I, Leipzig, 
1897. J. W. Burgon, The Bevision Bevised, London, 1883. 
LI. J. M. Bebb, Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic 
Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament, 
Studia Biblica, II, Oxford. Lists of ancient writers in Teschen- 
dorf, Prolegomena ; Scrivener's Introduction ; andE. C. Mitchell, 
Critical Handbook of the Greek New Testament, New York, 
1896. 






part n 

HISTOBY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE 
NEW TESTAMENT 



CHAPTER V 
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE EARLY CHURCH 

- 

Textual Criticism of the New Testament is a 
modern science, although attention was very early- 
directed to the condition of the New Testament text. 
Early Corruptions of the text appeared at a very early 

appearance date. Eeuss says, " It may be asserted with toler- 

of textual 

corruptions, able certainty that the farther back we go in the his- 
tory of the text the more arbitrarily it was treated." 
Differences between New Testament manuscripts 
appeared within a century of the time of its com- 
position, and additions and alterations introduced by 
heretical teachers were early a cause of complaint. 
Tischendorf says, " I have no doubt that in the very 
earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, 
and before the authority of the church protected 
them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, 
were made in them." Scrivener says that the worst 
corruptions to which the New Testament has ever 
beeri subjected, originated within a hundred years 
after it was composed, and Hort agrees with him/' 
Unlike the text of the Koran, which was officially 
fixed from the first and regarded as sacred, — for a 
century and a half at least, the greatest freedom 

42 



EARLY CHURCH 43 

was exercised in the treatment of the New Testament 
writings. These writings were not originally regarded 
as Holy Scripture. Copies of the writings of the 
Apostles were made for the use of individual com- 
munities, and with no thought of placing them on the 
same level with the Old Testament. Accordingly, 
there would be little effort at punctilious accuracy, 
and little scruple in making alterations. 

Variants meet us as soon as quotations from the 
apostolic writings occur at all in later authors, and 
that both in catholic and heretical writers. Heretics Work of 
felt the necessity of seeking for their peculiar doc- corrupting 
trines a support which should secure for them a place the text, 
within the church with whose tradition they were, at 
many points, in conflict. Thus they were driven to 
interpret the apostolic writings in harmony with their 
own systems. 

Accordingly, we find, in the earlier Apologists, 
allusions to wilful corruptions and misinterpretations. 
Thus, Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. Ill, 12) declares that " the 
others (besides Marcion), though they acknowledge 
the Scriptures, pervert their interpretation." Ter 
tullian (De Praesc. Hser. XXXVIII) says that Mar- 
cion and Valentinus change the sense by their 
exposition. " Marcion," he continues, "has used a 
sword, not a pen; while Valentinus has both added 
and taken away." .Marcion mutilated the Gospel of 
Luke in the interest of his antijudaistic views, 
although it should be said that some of his varia- 
tions were doubtless taken from manuscripts in circu- 
lation in his time. Both Tertullian and Epiphanius 
go through his work in detail, indicating the mutila- 
tion point by point. 1 

1 See J. W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, 34, 36. Tertullian, 
Adv. Marc. IV, V. Epiphanius, Hcer. XLII. Examples of 
Gnostic interpretations are given by Irenseus (Adv. Hcer, I, et 






44 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Origen's 
textual com- 
ments. 



Manuscripts 
not care- 
fully pre- 
pared. 



Reputed 
revision by 
Hesychius 
and Lucian. 



Such perversions called forth attempts at textual 
criticism. Origen (Comm. on Matthew) remarks on 
the diversity of copies arising either from the negli- 
gence of scribes or the presumption of correctors. He 
frequently discusses various readings, and comments 
upon the comparative value of manuscripts and the 
weight of numerical testimony. He seldom attempts 
to decide on the right reading, being rather inclined to 
accept all conflicting readings as contributing to edi- 
fication. His value is in reproducing the character- 
istic readings which he found. There is no sufficient 
evidence of a general revision of the text by him, as 
maintained by Hug. 

Again, minute care was not exercised in the prepa- 
ration of manuscripts. In some cases they appear to 
have issued from a kind of factory, where the work 
of transcribing was carried on on a large scale. Por- 
tions of the same manuscript seem to have been 
copied from different exemplars and by different 
hands, and it does not appear to have been thought 
necessary to compare the two exemplars, or to har- 
monise the disagreements. Moreover, changes of 
reading were introduced by individual bishops, who 
had the sole authority over the public reading of 
Scripture, and these changes, unless very violent, 
would soon become as familiar as the old readings, 
and would pass into the versions. 1 

According to Jerome, 2 Hesychius, an Egyptian 
bishop, and Lucian, a presbyter and martyr of Anti- 
och, undertook a revision of the New Testament text 
toward the close of the third century. Our informa- 

passim) and by Origen in his commentary on the Fourth 
Gospel. 

1 See G. Salmon, Some Criticism of the Text of the New 
Testament, 61, 78. 

2 Adv. Bufinum, II, 26 ; Be Vir. III. 77 ; Ad Damasum. 



EARLY CHURCH 45 

tion on this work, however, is very meagre. Jerome 
speaks of it slightingly, and the Decretum of Pope 
Gelasius I, " De libris recipiendis et non recipiendis " 
(496 A.D.), the genuineness of which, however, is dis- 
puted, refers to Hesychius and Lucian as having falsi- 
fied the Gospels into Apocrypha. 1 

Harmonies of the Gospels, by which are meant con- 
structions of a single continuous narrative out of the 
four, like that of Tatian, had a tendency to foster 
alterations made in order to bring the Gospels into 
harmony of expression as well as of substance. 2 

Of this Jerome complains (Ad Damas.), as also of Jerome com- 
the transference of marginal glosses to the text. He alterations 
comments on the number of recensions, which he de- of tne text - 
clares are well-nigh as numerous as the codices, and 
urges a return to the Greek original, and a correction 
of those things which have been falsely rendered by 
vicious interpreters, or perversely emended by pre- 
sumptuous ignoramuses. In his own revision of the 
New Testament, begun about 382, Jerome displayed 
great timidity, and chose codices which did not differ 
widely from the readings of the Latin. 

We repeat, however, that textual criticism is a 
modern science, and cannot be said to have really ex- 
isted before the application of printing to the New 
Testament text. In our discussion of its history it 
will therefore be more convenient as well as more 
interesting to combine the history of criticism with 
that of the printed text. 

1 See B.F. Westcott, History of the New Testament Canon, 
5th ed., 393, note. O. von Gebhardt, article " Bible Text," in 
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, I, 270. F. J. A. Hort, Westcott 
and Hort's Greek Testament, Introduction, 181. E. Reuss, 
Geschichte der heiligen Schrifte7i des Neuen Testaments, 5th ed., 
trans, by Houghton, §§ 367, 368. 

2 See J. Hamlyn Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ, etc., 31, 32. 



46 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Printing 
applied 
earlier to 
the Old 
Testament. 



Reasons for 
delay in 
printing the 
New Testa- 
ment. 



Printing was applied to the Old Testament much 
earlier than to the New. The Jews, by means of their 
numbers and wealth, were able to command both the 
skill and the money necessary for the multiplication 
of the Old Testament in Hebrew, and there was a 
demand among them for Hebrew books. While no 
printed edition of the New Testament was made before 
1514, the Hebrew Psalter was issued in 1477, and the 
entire Old Testament in Hebrew in 1488. Portions 
of the Greek Testament, however, were printed as 
early as 1486 — the Hymns of Mary and Zacharias — 
as an appendix to a Greek Psalter, and the first six 
chapters of the Fourth Gospel appeared in 1504, edited 
by Aldus Manutius of Venice. 

The reason for this delay was that the capture of 
Constantinople by the Turks (1453), and the conse- 
quent bondage or exile of the Greek population, were 
nearly contemporaneous with the invention of printing, 
thus hindering the efforts of the Greeks to multiply 
copies of their scriptures. Many of the exiled Greeks 
earned their living by copying Greek books, and thus 
had a positive interest in not using the art of printing ; 
and the early attempts at printing Greek were clumsy, 
so that manuscript was preferred for reading. "So 
habituated were Greek scholars in that day to read 
Greek abounding with contractions, many of which 
were deemed by copyists to be feats of calligraphy, 
that the endeavours to print Greek with separate types 
were despised and undervalued " (Tregelles). 

The Latin Vulgate reigned supreme and unchallenged 
in Western Europe, as the only form in which Scripture 
was known and received. Even theologians had no 
desire for the original text. The Old Testament in 
Hebrew was regarded as a book for Jews only. Latin 
was held to be the only proper medium for the in- 
struction of Christians, and all departures from 



EABLY CHURCH 



47 



Jerome's Version were suspected as dangerous inno- 
vations. 1 

The history of the printed text of the New Testa- 
ment and of the accompanying development of textual 
criticism falls into three periods : (1) The period of 
the reign of the Textus Eeceptus, 1516-1770; (2) The 
transition period from the Textus Eeceptus to the 
older uncial text, 1770-1830; (3) The period of the 
dethronement of the Textus Receptus, and the effort 
to restore the oldest and purest text by the application 
of the genealogical method, 1830 to the present time. 

1 The Latin Vulgate was first published at Mayence in 1455, 
in two volumes, known as the Mazarin Bible. The German 
Bible was also printed before the Greek and Hebrew original. 
At least fourteen editions of the High German Bible were printed 
before 1518, and four of the Low German from 1480 to 1522. 
See Fritzsche, article "Deutsche Bibelubersetzungen, " in Her- 
zog's Beal-Encyklopadie. 



Periods of 
the develop- 
ment of 
textual 
criticism. 



CHAPTER VI 

FIRST PERIOD (1516-1770). THE COMPLUTENSIAN 
POLYGLOT AND ERASMUS'S GREEK TESTAMENT 



Ximenes 
and the 
Compluten- 
sian. 



First 

printed but 
not first 
published. 



Aldus Manutius, the Venetian publisher, an accom- 
plished scholar, had conceived the plan of a Polyglot 
of three languages, probably as early as 1497 ; and in 
1501 he submitted a proof-sheet to Conrad Celtes, a 
German scholar. 1 

It is, however, to the Spanish cardinal, Ximenes de 
Cisneros, Archbishop of Toledo, that the honour belongs 
of preparing the first printed edition of the Greek New 
Testament. 2 

It was intended to celebrate the birth of the heir 
to the throne of Castile, afterward Charles V. The 
cardinal employed for the work the best scholars he 
could secure, among whom were three converted Jews. 
The most eminent was James Lopez de Stunica, after- 
ward known for his controversy with Erasmus. The 
fifth volume of the work, containing the New Testa- 
ment, was the first completed, in 1514. The printing 
of the entire work was completed on the 10th of July, 
1517. But though the first printed, this was not the 
first published edition of the Greek Testament. Pope 
Leo X withheld his approval until 1520, and the work 
was not issued until 1522, three years after the car- 
dinal's death, and six years after the publication of 

1 The Greek Psalter, in the preface to which the plan is an- 
nounced, is undated. 

2 For some personal notices of Ximenes, see Scrivener's Intro- 
duction, II, 176. 

48 



.&£ %* 11 $ 

e § * I 

ct H 5 «S 

"p, S 3 u 

s p cr t* 

lilt 

*> S % 3 i 

fe I a 2 ' 

xs- « ^sJ aro 



-o a?' « 



8 13 




15 && 
15 



S $j p^ X, 

i 8 £«-§ 

ft '2 3 ,u 




>£. 12? *•* ?i ** 




i *° i 4 o S » sj-,2 a. sit 5 
cot ~: *~ a p> ? >* w J7 r> 

g OtrS > O O^ >F->1"> 
£ a.w O °-> o- O t>.2 is 

*~JP &.fc a.a.p-p„^-> *5 a 
STEs K 5 a h-> «? i 5 

•-° y 6 £. « <- .vf % a. > £ ^ 



„° £ § «C rs* r ij to 3 K 



o§-i.§B|-b'^p=io 

's: .9 .« 3 « S? a. 0- £ S C 
o 



-3 



I 



5 8 

P 






— 
® 



>L 


£ 


b 


8 


o 


h 


Su 




O 


& 


a 


4S 


<3> 


<-> 


H 


» 


d 


a 


=1 


§ 


B 


l 


a ♦ 


« 


.** 




> 2 


*S- 


RK 


O 

s 



*?> 



€> ^ "^ .H 

« *S y *Q 



§,S 2 1 5 

si S* C c Q 

H § ^§ ft -S '"5 



•5? sSii 



H u U 



II o ill 

"~ c* § S s £ 

8 § 3 g •« 2 

S^ oe J»^ 



*5 <s* g e Z V 
S S -H § •£ -S 

Tt wb JS ^ C H 

lllftl 



®§M 




THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT 49 

Erasmus's Testament. The entire cost was about 
$115,000, and only six hundred copies were printed. 

This work is known as the Complutensian Polyglot, 
from Complutum, the Latin name of the town of Alcala 
de Henares, the seat of a university, in the district of 
Guadalajara, a few miles to the northeast of Madrid, 
where the printing was done. There are six volumes, 
containing the Old Testament with the Apocrypha, and 
the New Testament, together with indices, lexica, and 
other matter. The canonical books of the Old Testa- 
ment are given in three languages, the Latin Vulgate 
occupying the place between the Septuagint and the 
Hebrew. As announced in the Prolegomena, this 
arrangement signified that Christ (the Eonian or Latin 
Church) was crucified between two robbers (the Jew- 
ish Synagogue and the schismatical Greek Church). 
The New Testament is given in the Greek and in 
the Latin Vulgate. Its title is: NOVUM TESTA- 
MENTUM GE.ECE ET LATINE IN ACADEMIA 
COMPLUTENSI NOUITEE IMPEESSUM. Par- 
allel passages and quotations are placed in the Latin 
margin. The chapters are marked, but not the verses. 

The text of the Complutensian was reprinted in sev- Reprints of 
eral successive editions at Antwerp and Geneva, and £ ne po^piu- 
also in the Antwerp Polyglot, edited by Spaniards 
(1571-72), in the great Paris Polyglot (1630-33), and at 
Mayence in 1753. It was reedited by Professor P. A. 
Gratz of Tubingen, along with the Clementine Vulgate, 
and by Leander Van Ess, with the text of Erasmus in- 
corporated (1827). In Stephen's third edition (see be- 
low) it is partially connected with the Textus Eeceptus. 

The important question — What manuscripts were whatmanu- 
used in the preparation of the New Testament text ? — scripts were 
cannot be answered. The editors name but one manu- 
script (Codex Ehodiensis, Acts), and this has disap- 
peared. They describe their manuscripts generally as 



SO TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

" antiquissima et emendatissima," and state that they 
were furnished by Pope Leo X from the Apostolic 
Library at Eome. But Leo could have sent no New 
Testament manuscripts, since he was elected less than 
a year before the New Testament was printed. The 
library records show that only two manuscripts were 
sent to Ximenes from the Vatican in Leo's first year, 
neither of which contained any part of the New Tes- 
tament. 1 The catalogue of Biblical manuscripts in the 
library at Alcala consists exclusively of Hebrew and 
Latin books, except two containing portions of the 
LXX. The story that all the New Testament manu- 
scripts at Alcala were sold as useless parchments to a 
rocket-maker, in 1749, is without foundation ; since all 
the manuscripts formerly belonging to Ximenes and 
preserved at Alcala were transferred to Madrid. 

It need not be doubted that the Complutensian edi- 
tors regarded their manuscripts as ancient and valu- 
able, and intended to use them fairly. The charge of 
Wetstein and Semler, that they corrupted the text by 
conforming it to the Latin, is not sustained,, which is 
the more remarkable, in view of the almost idolatrous 
reverence for the Vulgate indicated in their preface. 
A few passages, notably 1 John 5 : 7, 8, afford ground 
for suspicion, but a careful comparison shows that, 
in the main, they followed their Greek manuscripts. 
They were unskilled in criticism, ignorant of the value 
of manuscripts, and editing the New Testament was a 
quite new work. There is no evidence that they used 
B, or any manuscript much resembling it in character, 
or any other ancient or notably important document. 
Their text exhibits affinities with certain cursives of 

1 Tregelles {Printed Text, etc. , 7) maintains that the statement 
of the editors is truthful, and that both Old and New Testament 
manuscripts were furnished from the Vatican. He makes out a 
very feeble case. 



THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT 51 

the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries ; and, Character of 
almost invariably, wherever manuscripts of the thir- tensiantext" 
teenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries differ from 
the most ancient Greek codices and from the quota- 
tions of early Greek Fathers, the Complutensian agrees 
with the modern as against the ancient. The text does 
not differ widely from that of most codices written 
from the tenth century downward. 1 

The first published edition of the Greek New Testa- First pub- 
ment was due to the enterprise of a publisher, Eroben, ^ shed edi ~ 
the printer of Basle, who, having heard that the Span- 
ish Polyglot was in preparation, resolved to forestall 
it. Accordingly he secured, in 1515, the services of 
Desiderius Erasmus, who executed the task of prepar- Erasmus, 
ing an edition of the Greek Testament with such de- 
spatch that the work appeared March 1, 1516, less than 
six months from the commencement of the printing. 
CEcolampadius assisted in the correction of the proofs. 
It was, of course, full of errors, although described in 
the preface as " diligenter recognitum et emendatum " ; 
and the address to Pope Leo X assured the Pontiff that 
" non temere neque levi opera, sed adhibitis in consil- 
ium compluribus utriusque linguae codicibus — vetus- 
tissimis simul et emendatissimis." Erasmus himself 
declared, later, that it was " precipitated rather than 
edited." Dr. Scrivener says, "Erasmus's first edition, 
in respect of typographical errors, is the most faulty 
book I know." In order to save time, he even used 
his manuscripts as printers' " copy." 

1 On the Complutensian Polyglot see Tischendorf, Prolego- 
mena, 205 ff. Scrivener, Introduction, II, 176 ff. Tregelles, 
Printed Text of the Greek Testament. I. M. Goeze, Vertheidi- 
gung der Complutens. Bibel, Hamburg, 1765-69. F. Delitzsch, 
Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Polyglottenbibel des 
Cardinal Ximenes, Leipzig, 1871. C. I. Hefele, Der Cardinal 
Ximenes, 2d ed., Tubingen, 1851. 



52 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Manuscripts 
employed by- 
Erasmus. 



Erasmus's 
own Greek 
in the 
Apocalypse. 



It formed a large folio of 1027 pages, and contained, 
along with tlie Greek text, an elegant Latin version, 
differing in many respects from the Vulgate. For this 
version Erasmus had made notes several years before. 
'Erasmus's first edition was based on a very few 
manuscripts. Only one of these had any special value 
(Codex 1, Evang. Act. 1, P. 1, tenth century), and this 
he almost entirely neglected, indeed, professed to hold 
it in slight esteem. The basis of his text in the Gospels 
was an inferior Basle manuscript of the fifteenth cen- 
tury, and in the Acts and Epistles one of the thirteenth 
or fourteenth century. With these he collated, more 
or less carefully, one other manuscript of the Gospels, 
two in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and three in the 
Pauline Epistles. None of these was earlier than the 
tenth century. Of the Apocalypse he had but a single 
manuscript of the twelfth century, of which Dr. Hort 
says that with many individualisms and scantily at- 
tested readings, it has a large and good ancient ele- 
ment and ought to stand very high among secondary 
documents (Greek Testament, Introduction, 263). Of 
this manuscript the last six verses were lacking. These 
Erasmus, who was a better Latinist than Grecian, 
turned from the Latin into his own Greek. Some por- 
tions of this version, which are to be found in no 
Greek manuscript, still appear in the Textus Eeceptus. 1 



1 Such are aKaddpTyros for ra dKddapra ttJs, XVII, 4. The 
Greek language has no such word as dKadapr^s. KaLirep karlv for 
kclI Trapfarai, XVII, 8. Compare Authorized Version, u and yet 
is." As late as 1883 the first impression of the Revision of 
Luther's Bible by the German Evangelical Church Conference 
left this standing ; and it was not removed until the last Revision 
in 1892. 'OpdpLvdsioi irpu'Cvbs, XXII, 16. 'EX^for e/>%oi/, twice, 
and XajjipaptTw for \a/3£rw, XXII, 17. ' AQoLiprj for a<j>£\r), and 
&<pcupr)<rei for d0eXe?, XXII, 19. Instances of his use of the 
Vulgate in order to amend his Greek manuscripts, where he 
thought them defective, are found in his notes on Acts 9 : 5, 



PLATE Y 



3 ^ *"D« 
3 *a 3 



"tJ.^g « S oyr.x:'^ S3 -g « s a « s 
»J H a o-^U a-^ &P& g 5 £ *S > 



Sll'3 « ^S •£ .§■>* « 2 ,cr<a < fa 



a .la 



*Q 



JT.* W 



« .s 2 -S tJ -S e .s » .a SO 



« "a 

£L S 3 13 i=s ja 
«3 *??*=? -sg e ^5 ^ is ^ ,rf <3 

.9 jg.ElJs a <s~ & .£* £ -a 13 e She 

^ 3 3 W 



rt 3 a u „ ^ ^ '"O *i3 ^ ^ *s 



3 ^ 



3 



PS 



OS S3; £3 



2 IS 



s? ' S P. 



hTj 9 =e s 
3 - -5 a* £ 



<1 5S 



S 

O 
3 

3 

o 

u 

*TS=S 

u 



&£ 3 0* 



e 5 <* fii" 












^ 



«(0 















93 




*» 3 b 



«^Oo *c 



- 3 






|'f J^^ ^'P 



: ^ 2ri -v "O t9 ^ 
5t ^ #<? -ts a 






3: 






-*vu 



w 



.? ^ *^ h 
5 5b « N 



S ^ -2 ^ s § ^ ^< 
« J 5 *« ^ *^ 

&S-? rsf l i U 



4. 

3 

■a 



=£, fc» ^ JS <^ 4 ^ ^ K 3- 5 






H 

O 

N 



O 

•3 1 

6 « 1 

o S a 
3 o g 

= 1^ 

t J- 2 

&g o 

« « O 
«5 >S .^ 

||1 

•P a 2i 

J I s 

& 

c 



Facsimile of half of the Last Page of Erasmus's First Edition of 
the Greek Testament, showing the Verses which Erasmus ren- 
dered from the Vulgate into his own Greek 



(Size of original page, not including margins, 8j| in. x 5£ in.) 



THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT 



53 



Erasmus also refers in his notes to other manu- 
scripts seen by him in his travels, but the allusions 
are indistinct, and some of the readings are not to be 
found. That he had heard of B, appears from Sepul- 
veda's correspondence with him in 1533. Sepulveda 
speaks of a "most ancient Greek exemplar in the 
Vatican Library, containing both Testaments, most 
carefully and accurately written in uncial characters, 
and differing greatly from ordinary copies." 1 

While the work was heartily welcomed in some Attacks on 
quarters, it was unsparingly condemned in others, festament 
Erasmus's revised Latin Version was regarded as a pre- 
sumptuous innovation, and many of the theologians of 
the day were displeased by the annotations in which 
his alterations were justified. He was attacked by 
Edward Lee, afterward Archbishop of York, and by 
Stunica, the Complutensian editor. They complained 
especially of the omission of 1 John 5 : 7. Erasmus 
maintained that it was not an omission, but a non- 
addition, showing that even some Latin copies did not 
contain the verse. 

Although the emperor had protected Erasmus's first Reprinted 
edition against reprint for four years, it was repro- ^7 A1 ^- US 
duced by Aldus Manutius, with some variations, but 
with the most of the typographical errors, at Venice, in 
1518. It was placed at the end of the Graeca Biblia, 
the Aldine Septuagint. 

Erasmus himself published four other editions. 
The second appeared in 1519. He had given much 



6 ; 8 : 37. This manuscript of the Apocalypse was borrowed 
by Erasmus from Reuchlin, and was retained by Froben, who 
afterward disposed of it. It lay concealed in the library of 
the family of Ottingen at Mayhingen, until discovered in 1861 
by Fr. Delitzsch. See Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, I, 
1861-62. 

1 See Scrivener's Introduction, I, 109. 



54 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



Insertion of 
1 John 5: 7. 



Erasmus's attention in the meantime to examining manuscripts 
tions. an ^- ^° rev isi n g n is own Latin Version; and having 

besides more leisure, the text of the second edition 
contained many corrections, both of misprints and 
readings, the latter mainly on the authority of a fresh 
codex of the twelfth century. It contains, however, 
several pages of errors, some of which affected 
Luther's German Version. Erasmus's revision of his 
Latin Version called out fresh attacks : for instance, his 
substitution of " sermo " for u verbum " in John 1 : l. 1 
The third edition, 1522, differed in several places 
from the text of the preceding, but was chiefly re- 
markable for the insertion of 1 John 5 : 7. The strong 
feeling excited by its omission from the two former 
editions had led Erasmus to promise that he would 
insert it if it could be found in any Greek manuscript. 
In the interval between 1519 and 1522 there came to 
hand a manuscript of the sixteenth century, described 
Codex Mont- by Erasmus as Codex Britannicus, but now identified 
as Codex Montfortianus, at present in the library of 
Trinity College, Dublin. Its earliest known owner 
was Eroy or Roy, a Franciscan monk, who is believed 
by some to have written the codex and to have intro- 
duced the words from the Vulgate. Erasmus inserted 
them in the third edition, but, as he wrote in his note, 
"ne cui sit ansa calumniandi." He continued to re- 
gard the passage as spurious. 

The fourth edition, 1527, contained the Greek, the 
Vulgate, and Erasmus's Version, in three parallel col- 
umns. Since the publication of the third edition the 
Complutensian had come into circulation, and Erasmus 
availed himself of it to make certain corrections, and 



fortianus. 



1 Dr. Scrivener justly remarks that a minute collation of all 
Erasmus's editions is greatly to be desired. The number of 
corrections in the successive editions, as given by Mill, and 
repeated on Mill's authority by Tregelles, is not reliable. 



THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT 55 

especially to revise the imperfect text of the Apoca- 
lypse, though he did not correct all the readings which 
he had himself manufactured by translating from the 
Latin. With this exception the fourth edition differed 
little from the third. The same was true of the fifth 
edition, published in 1535, which, however, omitted the 
Vulgate, and retained Erasmus's own Latin Version. 1 

Colinaeus. — The edition of Colinaeus (Simon de Colinseus's 
Colines), Paris, 1534, introduced valuable manuscript edition * 
readings, but the edition could not be called critical 
The examination of manuscripts was not carried 
through. The Erasmian readings in the end of the 
Apocalypse were retained. The text, generally speak- 
ing, was a mixture of the Erasmian and Compluten- 
sian. The edition was not reprinted, and appears to 
have had no influence on those which succeeded it. 2 

1 See Tregelles, Printed Text, 19-29. Scrivener, Introduction, 
I, 199 f. ; II, 182-187, 401-407. Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 
207-211. Fr. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, I, Leipzig, 
1861. J. A. Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus. J. Rendel 
Harris, The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament, 
46-53, London, 1887. 0. T. Dobbin, The Codex Montfortianus, 
etc., London, 1854. E. Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti 
Grceci. H. C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation of the 
Greek Cursive Codex, Evangelium 604, Appendix B, the vari- 
ous readings by the fifth edition of Erasmus ; Appendix F, re- 
port of a visit to the public library at Basle, with facsimile of 
Erasmus's second manuscript, Evang. 2, London, 1890. E. 
Nestle, Einfuhrung in das Griechische Neue Testament, 6-8. 
F. J. A. Hort, Greek Testament, Introduction, 103 ff. 

2 Both Reuss and Nestle are disposed to estimate Colinseus's 
edition highly. Nestle says that he introduced a series of read- 
ings which are generally acknowledged at this day ; and Reuss 
gives a list of fifty-two passages in which he stands alone among 
early editors. Compare Scrivener, Introduction, IT, 188. C. R. 
Gregory, in Prolegomena to Tischendorf 's Testament, says, " In 
fifty-two places of those examined by Reuss, Colinaeus furnishes 
several readings which are to-day approved by many learned 



CHAPTER VII 

THE FIRST PERIOD (1516-1770). THE TEXTUS 
RECEPTUS 

Robert Of Eobert Stephen (Estienne), printer at Paris and 

editions.' 8 Protege of Erancis I, it has been said that his biblical 
work, taken all together, had perhaps more influence 
than that of any other single man in the sixteenth 
century. 1 His first two editions, 1546, 1549, were in 
small 12mo, printed with type cast at the expense of 
Erancis, and issued from the Eoyal press. They are 
known as the " mirificam " editions, from the open- 
ing words of the preface, "0 mirificam Eegis nostri 
optimi et praestantissimi Principis liberalitatem." In 
1550 appeared the third edition, in folio, also from 
the Eoyal press, inscribed on the title-page, Bao-tAet 
r ? dya0a> Kparepco r' alxM T V> ^ n honour of Henry II, and 
commonly known as the Editio Eegia. Soon after 
its publication, Stephen, in order to escape from the 
hounding of the Sorbonne theologians and the censors 
of the press, removed to Geneva, where he issued his 
fourth edition, small 12m o, in 1551. The text of the 
editions of 1546 and 1549 was a compound of the 
Complutensian and Erasmian texts. 2 

The third (folio) edition, the text of which was 

1 Wordsworth, White, and Sanday, Old Latin Biblical Texts. 

2 Scrivener says that his own collation of these two editions 
gives 139 divergencies in the text and 27 in punctuation, and 
that in the Apocalypse both editions adhere closely to the Eras- 
mian text, differing from each other in only 11 places. 

56 



collection of 
various 



THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS 57 

mainly that of Erasmus's fourth and fifth editions, 
contained marginal readings from the Complutensian, 
and from fifteen manuscripts, among which were Codex 
Bezae (D), and Codex Parisiensis (Evang. L, eighth 
century). The collation, both of the Complutensian 
and of the manuscripts, was partial and slovenly. 
The text is perpetually at variance with the majority 
of authorities. Of the Complutensian readings many 
more were omitted than inserted, and the Complu- 
tensian text is often cited incorrectly. The adoption 
of Erasmus's text causes nearly three hundred depar- 
tures from the editions of 1546 and 1549. 

This, however, was the first collection of various The first 
readings of any extent, and, however defective, was of 
real value to students. 1 readings. 

The fourth edition, 16mo, contained two Latin Ver- 
sions, the Vulgate and that of Erasmus, on either side 
of the Greek text. The text was mainly that of the First 
third edition. Here the division of the text into of verse^ 6 
verses appears for the first time. 2 division. 

1 The manuscripts collated by Stephen have been identified. 
The two uncials, D and L, are both important. L, of the Four 
Gospels, is remarkable for its agreement with B, the citations 
of Origen, and the margin of the Harclean Syriac. Scrivener 
characterises it as u by far the most remarkable document of 
its age and class." The cursives are of the tenth, eleventh, 
twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. No. 10 (Acts, Catholic Epis- 
tles, Paul, and Apocalypse, tenih century) has considerable 
value in the Apocalypse. A list of the manuscripts may be 
seen in Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 213. Stephen's third edi- 
tion was republished by Dr. Scrivener, Cambridge, 1859 ; new 
edition, 1887, and again, 1887, with the variations of the prin- 
cipal editors down to Westcott and Hort and the Revisers. 

2 See Scrivener, Introduction, IT, 188-192. Tischendorf, 
Prolegomena, 212 ft I. H. Hall, on "Chapters and Verses," 
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, 1, 433. Also Journal of the Society 
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1883, 1891. Ezra Abbot, 
"De Versibus," in Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 167-182. H. C. 



58 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Beza's edi- 
tions. 



Geneva 
Bible. 



Beza. — Theodore de Beze, the friend and successor 
of Calvin in Geneva, and an eminent classical and 
biblical scholar, besides his own Latin Version in 
1556, issued ten editions of the Greek Testament : 
four in folio, 1565, 1582, 1588, and 1598, and six 8vo, 
1565, 1567, 1580, 1591, 1604, 1611. He was not dili- 
gent in collecting fresh material for the correction of 
the text, and he did not make any extensive use of 
his own D of the Gospels and Acts, and D 2 (Claro- 
montanus) of the Pauline Epistles, sixth century. He 
was shy of departures from the text of Erasmus and 
Stephen. His textual basis was Stephen's fourth 
edition, from which, however, he occasionally di- 
verged, sometimes in favour of the Complutensian, 
and sometimes of Erasmus, and occasionally sub- 
stituting new readings. He availed himself of the 
Oriental Versions, employing Tremellius's Latin Ver- 
sion of the Peshitto, and Franciscus Junius's Latin 
Translation of the Arabic Version. However, he did 
not make much use of these. All of his editions vary 
somewhat from each other, as well as from those of 
Stephen, yet there is no material difference between 
any of them. The charge of selecting his readings to 
suit his theological opinions (Scrivener, II, 193) should 
be received with caution. 

Beza's Latin Translation and Commentary were 
taken as a guide by the editors of the Genevan Bible, 
which was originally published in 1560, and with a 
further revision of the New Testament in fuller har- 
mony with Beza's views, in 1576. The title was, 
"The New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ trans- 
lated out of Greek by Theodore Beza." This work, 

Hoskier, Account and Collation of Codex 604, etc. ; Appen- 
dix B, reprint with corrections of Scrivener's list of differences 
between Stephen, 1550, and the Complutensian, etc. Tregelles, 
Printed Text, 30 f. 



THE TEXTUS BECEPTUS 



59 



though, never formally authorised, exercised the most 
marked influence of all the early translations upon the 
Authorised Version of 1611, the chief foundations of 
which were the editions of 1588 and 1598. It was the 
Bible of the household, the most popular in England 
up to the advent of King James's Version. It con- 
tinued to be reprinted until after the middle of the 
seventeenth century; many copies were brought to 
America by immigrants, and it passed through about 
one hundred and sixty editions. 1 

The merit of arranging the Oriental Versions in a 
convenient form for Biblical study belongs to the 
Antwerp Polyglot, issued in eight volumes folio, 
under the patronage of Philip II, by the publisher, 
Christopher Plantin, at Antwerp, 1569-72, and 
edited by the Spanish theologian, Benedict Arias 
Montanus. The Greek text appears twice : in Vol. V, 
with the Vulgate, the Syrian text and its Latin Trans- 
lation, and in Vol. VI, with the interlinear version of 
Arias. The text is mainly that of the Complutensian, 
but agrees in a few places with Stephen, twice with 
Erasmus, and once presents a new reading. Thirteen 
copies were printed on vellum. The British Museum 
has the one prepared for the Duke of Alva. 2 

We now begin to see attention called to the value 
of patristic quotations in determining the text. Lucas 
Brugensis, in 1580, prepared annotations on the entire 

1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 214-216. Scrivener, Intro- 
duction, II, 192 f. J. Eadie, Histoid/ of the English Bible, II, 
XXXII-XXXVII. Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti. Arti- 
cle "Beza," Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. B. F. Westcott, 
History of the English Bible, 296, 297. 

2 See E. Nestle, Einfiihrung, etc., 10. Tischendorf, Prolego- 
mena, 215 f. M. Rooses, Chnstopher Plantin, Imprimeur An- 
versois, Antwerp, 1884. Id., Plantin, C. Correspondance, Gand, 
1886. Le Degeorge, La Maison Plantin a Anvers, 3d ed. , Paris, 
1886. 



The Ant- 
werp Poly- 
glot. 



Attention 
directed to 
patristic 
quotations. 



60 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



The Paris 
Polyglot. 



The Elze- 
virs. 



Bible, from Greek and Latin Codices, and from the 
Syriac Version ; and in 1606 edited the four Gospels 
with a Commentary from Planting Polyglot, and 
with little change of the text. Hugo Grotius, Poly- 
glotta Londinensia, freely uses patristic testimony. 1 

On a still larger scale was the Paris Polyglot of 
Guy Michel Jay, ten volumes folio. Jean Morin and 
Gabriel Sionita, a Maronite, were the principal col- 
laborators in preparing the Oriental texts. The two 
volumes of the New Testament appeared in 1630 and 
1633. To the texts of the Antwerp Polyglot it added 
a Syrian Version of the contested books — 2 Peter, 2 
and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse — and an Arabic 
Version with a Latin rendering. The text was that 
of the Antwerp Polyglot, with a very few changes. 2 

The Elzevirs and the Textus Receptus. — The brothers 
Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir established a press 
at Leyden, and issued seven successive editions : 1624, 
1633, 1641, 1656, 1662, 1670, 1678. An 8vo edition 
was printed by them for Whittaker of London, in 1633, 
with notes by Eobert Stephen, Scaliger, Casaubon, and 
others, and was also issued at Leyden with a new 
title-page in 1641. The Elzevirs' four later editions 
were printed in Amsterdam. Their Testaments were 
very popular because of their small and convenient 
size and their neat text. The text of the edition of 
1624 was drawn chiefly from Beza's 1565, 1582, 1589, 
and 1598, especially the last, besides Erasmus, the 
Complutensian and the Vulgate. The second edition 
(1633) had the verses broken up into separate sen- 
tences, instead of having their numbers indicated in 
the margin as in the edition of 1624. This edition is 
notable in the history of textual criticism as contain- 



11 



1 See Teschendorf, Prolegomena, 216, 221, 1132. 

2 See Teschendorf , Prolegomena, 220. Nestle, Einfuhrung, 



THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS 61 

ing the announcement : " Textum ergo habes nunc AB Textus 
OMNIBUS KECEPTUM in quo nihil immutatum aut f t e s c fX!' 
corruptum dam us." This is the origin of the famil- ence. 
iar phrase Textus Receptus. To this text an almost 
idolatrous reverence has attached nearly down to the 
present time. The history of the textual criticism of 
the New Testament is, largely, the story of gradual 
emancipation from the tyranny of the Textus Ee- 
ceptus. It has been slavishly followed with slight 
diversities in hundreds of editions, and substantially 
represented in all the principal Protestant translations 
prior to the present century. In some cases attempts 
to criticise or amend it have been regarded as akin to 
sacrilege. Yet this sacred text is essentially that of 
the last edition of Erasmus, framed from a few mod- 
ern and inferior manuscripts and the Complutensian 
Polyglot, in the very infancy of Biblical criticism. 
In more than a score of places it is supported by the 
authority of no Greek manuscript whatever. The term 
" Textus Eeceptus" is, in itself, untruthful. It was 
put forth simply as a clever advertisement of an enter- 
prising publisher. The edition which bore this pre- 
tentious announcement varied somewhat from that of 
1624 in the correction of some of the worst misprints, 
though it retained others equally bad, and added a few 
of its own. 

The term is differently applied in England and on Different 
the Continent : in England to Stephen's text of 1550, *F th^m 8 
and on the Continent to the Elzevir of 1633. The 
differences between these two amount, according to 
Scrivener, to 287. 1 

1 The reverence for the Textus Receptus, and its unhappy 
effect in retarding the progress of a sound textual criticism, 
may be seen in Dean J. W. Burgon's Revision Revised, Lon- 
don, 1883, in the works of Dr. Scrivener, and in the views of 
the Rev. E. Miller, in the Oxford Debate on the Textual Criti- 



62 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



The best textual scholarship of the present day re- 
pudiates the Textus Eeceptus as a textual basis. * The 
latest and best Concordance to the New Testament 
(Moulton and G-eden, 1897) entirely ignores its read- 
ings. 1 

cism of the New Testament , London, 1897. The Expositor's 
Greek Testament (I, 1897), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, and 
professing to give the latest results of critical scholarship, adopts 
the Receptus as its textual basis. It has been the policy of the 
British and Foreign Bible Society to circulate in Germany only 
reprints of the Textus Receptus. As late as 1893-94 that society 
printed at Cologne over twelve thousand copies of this text, and 
went on to circulate, in Germany and Switzerland, about six- 
teen hundred copies per annum. In order to counteract this, the 
Wiirttemburgian Bible Society at Stuttgart published last year 
a Greek Testament with a critically revised text, based on a col- 
lation of the editions of Tischendorf , Westcott and Hort, Wey- 
mouth, and Bernhard Weiss, adding for the Gospels and Acts a 
selection of manuscript readings, chiefly from Codex Bezae. It 
is an admirable specimen of typography, and can be purchased 
for about twenty-five cents. 

1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 216 ff. Scrivener, Introduc- 
tion, II, 193-195. A. Willems, Les Elzevier : Histoire et 
Annates Typographiques, Bruxelles et Paris, 1880. F. H. A. 
Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according 
to the Text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the 
Variations adopted in the Revised Version, Cambridge, 1881. 
He gives a list of the passages in which the Authorised Version 
departs from the readings of Beza, 1598. H. C. Hoskier, A 
Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evang. 
604- Appendix C, a full and exact comparison of the Elzevir 
editions of 1624 and 1633. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE FIRST PERIOD (1516-1770). THE BEGINNINGS 
OF A CRITICAL METHOD 

We have now reached the point where the prepara- Summary 
tion for effective criticism begins. Up to this time the resuYtsto 
work had been chiefly the collection and registering of 1628. 
evidence. Manuscripts were collated, and their vari- 
ous readings noted, but no comparison of them was 
attempted. In the earlier editions the evidence was 
scanty in amount and inferior in quality. The prin- 
cipal uncials were either unknown or inaccessible. 
Neither D or D 2 were much used by Beza, who held 
closely by the texts of Erasmus and Stephen. The 
Oriental Versions had been printed in the Antwerp 
Polyglot, but were used by Beza only to a limited ex- 
tent and through Latin translations. Lucas Brugen- 
sis and Grotius had only broken ground in the matter 
of patristic citations. The text of the Vulgate was 
faulty, and revisions like those of Erasmus and Beza 
were suspected and frowned upon by the ecclesiastical 
authorities. The body of manuscript evidence amassed 
by the Stephens was imperfectly collated in the edi- 
tion of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the 
margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the 
majority of them, and, in 119 places, with all of them. 
No fixed principles regulated the occasional applica- 
tions of the manuscript readings to the construction of 
the text. Neither the true value of various readings 

63 



64 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Codex A 
brought to 
England. 



Richard 
Simon. 



Walton's 
Polyglot. 



nor the necessity for accuracy in collation was appre- 
ciated or understood. With, the occasional adoption 
of fresh manuscript readings, mostly of a common and 
late type, the text remained substantially Erasmian, 
with some modifications from the Complutensian, ex- 
cept in those editions which had a Complutensian 
basis. The crystallisation into a fixed and received 
text which followed was due mostly to the beauty of 
the Stephen and Elzevir editions, and to the preten- 
tious and groundless advertisement of the Leyden 
printers. The Textus Eeceptus perpetuated some of 
the grossest errors of Erasmus. 

The impulse to a new development of textual science 
was given in England, about the middle of the seven- 
teenth century, through the gift, in 1628, of the Alex- 
andrian manuscript to Charles I, by Cyril Lucar, the 
Patriarch of Constantinople. France contributed a 
powerful auxiliary in Eichard Simon, whose writings 
had a large share in undermining the general acquies- 
cence in the Eeceived Text. 1 

Walton's Polyglot. — In England the way was led 
by Brian Walton, afterward Bishop of Chester, with 
his London Polyglot, issued in 1657 in six volumes 
folio. The fifth volume, containing the New Testa- 
ment, gives Stephen's text of 1550, with the readings 
of A at the foot. This notation marks the origin of 
the practice of designating the uncials by capitals. 
The sixth volume is devoted to a critical apparatus 
gathered from a number of authorities, including D, D 2 , 

1 Simon's principal works on the New Testament were : His- 
toire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 
1689 ; Histoire Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du 
Nouveau Testament . . . avec une Dissertation Critique sur 
les Principaux Actes Manuscrits, Rotterdam, 1693. Reuss 
says that Simon surpassed all his predecessors and his succes- 
sors for a long time after, in point of sound historical learning, 
acumen, and comprehensive grasp of the materials. 



SIMON AND WALTON 65 

and the copies in Stephen's margin. The most of these 
authorities had never been used before. Of the manu- Manuscripts 
scripts, which include the famous Codex Montf ortianus watton. 
(see under Erasmus), three are of the fifteenth cen- 
tury, one of the fifteenth or sixteenth, three of the 
twelfth, and one of the twelfth or thirteenth. Two, 
Evang. 59 and Act. 36, are valuable. Walton also gave 
the Velesian and Wechelian readings, which were of 
no value. 1 Besides the Greek text, the Polyglot con- 
tained the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitto, Ethiopic and 
Arabic Versions, besides a Persian Version of the Gos- 
pels, and the later Syriac of the five books not con- 
tained in the Peshitto (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, 
Apocalypse). Each Oriental Version was accompanied 
by a collateral Latin translation. 2 Walton's work thus 
consisted in adding to the materials of criticism. The 
versions in the fifth volume furnish a valuable store of 
material. He is charged, however, with suppressing 

1 The Velesian readings were a collection written in vermilion 
in the margin of a copy of Stephen's Editio Regia by Faxardo, 
Marquis of Velez, a Spaniard, who was said to have taken them 
from sixteen manuscripts, eight of which were in the Escorial. 
They were afterward shown to have been collected by Yelez 
from Latin manuscripts. 

The Wechelian readings were from the margin of a Bible 
printed at Frankfurt, 1597, by the heirs of Andrew Wechel. 
All of these readings are found in Stephen's margin, or in the 
early editions. 

2 Walton was a Royalist during the Civil War, and was chap- 
lain to Charles I ; but the Polyglot was published under the 
patronage of Cromwell, who allowed the paper to be imported 
free of duty. After the Restoration, Walton, appointed Bishop 
of Chester by Charles, issued a new preface, in which Cromwell 
was styled u maximus ille draco." Accordingly there are two 
kinds of copies, — the Republican, with compliments to Crom- 
well in the preface, but with no dedication, and the Loyal, dedi- 
cated to Charles II. This was the first work published ^ 
subscription in England. 

r 



66 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Curcellseus's 
Testament. 
Reacts un- 
favourably 
upon Wal- 
ton's Poly- 
glot. 



a large part of the collations which had been sent to 
him. 1 

Curcellaeus. — One year after the publication of 
Walton's Polyglot, appeared the Greek Testament 
of Stephen Curcellaeus, or Courcelles, with a learned 
introduction, parallel texts, and many various read- 
ings, some from two or three fresh manuscripts. He 
repeated the Elzevir text of 1633, with a few changes, 
enclosing 1 John 5 : 7 in brackets. He did not, how- 
ever, give the authorities for his readings, and those 
drawn from manuscripts were mingled with conjec- 
tures of his own. As these conjectures were mani- 
festly shaped by Socinian views, his Testament tended 
to discourage critical study as something aimed at the 
integrity and authority of Scripture. Its appearance 
so soon after Walton's Polyglot reacted unfavourably 
upon the latter, and created alarm at the collection of 
readings presented by Walton. The principal merit 
of Curcellseus's Testament consists in his collection of 
parallel texts. In his preface he gives an account of 
the earlier editions, and asserts that it is not yet time 
to judge of readings, but to collect and preserve them ; 
and that the suppression of them is the real source of 
the increasing corruption. 2 

1 See Tischendorf , Prolegomena, 220. Scrivener, Introduc- 
tion, II, 197 ff . J. Rendel Harris, Origin of the Leicester Codex 
of the New Testament, London, 1887. Henry Stevens, The 
Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, London, 1877. John Owen, 
Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew Text of the Scrip- 
tures, with Considerations on the Prolegomena and Appendix to 
the late Biblia Polyglotta, Oxford, 1659. B. Walton, The Con- 
sider ator Considered, London, 1659. S. P. Tregelles, Printed 
Text, etc., 38. H. J. Todd, Memoirs of the Life and Writings 
of Brian Walton, together with the Bishop's Vindication of the 
London Polyglot Bible, London, 1821. E. Reuss, article " Poly- 
glottenbibeln " in Herzog's Real-Encyklopddie. 

2 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 222. Scrivener, Introduc- 
tion, II, 198. Tregelles, Pnnted Text, 39. 



CURCELLJEUS, FELL, AND MILL 



67 



Fell. — It was with a view to counteract the unfavour- 
able impression created by Walton and Curcellaeus, 
that John Fell, Dean of Christ Church, and subse- 
quently Bishop of Oxford, issued his Greek Testament 
at Oxford in 1675. It was of small size, with the 
various readings at the foot of the pages, along with 
the authorities by which they were supported. The 
title-page announced that the text was drawn from 
more than a hundred manuscripts. The margin con- 
tained citations from the Memphitic and Gothic Ver- 
sions. He gave the readings of a very few manuscripts 
not previously collated, and added in his appendix the 
Barberini collection of readings. 1 

Fell's text was mainly that of the Elzevir of 1633. 
Little attention was given to patristic testimony. 2 

Mill. — Walton, Curcellseus, and Fell, particularly 
the last, prepared the way for John Mill, whose edition 
of the Greek Testament, published in folio, Oxford, 
1707, marked the foundation of textual criticism. His 
preparations for the work were begun about 1677, and 
were encouraged and promoted by Fell, and later by 
the patronage of Queen Anne. His merit was largely 
that of a collector of critical material. He gave much 
attention to patristic testimony, and also to the Vul- 

1 This was a collection made by John Matthew Caryophilus 
of Crete, abont 1625, with a view to an edition of the Greek 
Testament. It is described as " Collationes Grseci contextus 
omnium librorum Novi Testamenti juxta editionem Antverpien- 
sem regiam cum XXII codicibus antiquis MSS.' ' This was edited 
by Peter Poussin in 1673, and was found in the Barberini Library 
at Rome, in 1785, by Andrew Birch, along with the petition of 
Caryophilus to Pope Paul V for the loan of six manuscripts in 
the Vatican. These included B, and S (tenth century), which is 
among the earliest dated manuscripts of the Greek Testament. 
The Barberini readings often favour the Latin Version, and have 
been superseded. 

2 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 222. Scrivener, Introduc- 
tion, II, 199 f. Tregelles, Printed Text, 40. 



John Fell's 
Testament. 



Mill's 
Testament 
marked the 
foundation 
of textual 
criticism. 



68 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



Fore- 
shadows the 
genealogical 
method. 



First esti- 
mate as to 
number of 
variations. 



gate and Itala. His knowledge of Oriental languages 
was limited, so that lie was obliged to depend mainly 
on the Latin translations in Walton's Polyglot, 

As a collator, he was not accurate according to the 
modern standard of textual scholarship. He collected 
rather than classified manuscripts, although he fre- 
quently records his judgment of the value of readings, 
and exhibits a foreshadowing of the genealogical 
method in noting relationships between manuscripts, 
and between manuscripts and particular versions. 
The catalogue of his manuscripts may be seen in Tisch- 
endorf, Prolegomena, 226. He made no attempt to 
construct a new text, but used that of Stephen's 
3d ed., varying from it in a few places. His Prole- 
gomena consisted of three parts : (1) The canon of 
the New Testament. (2) The history of the text, 
including quotations of the Fathers and early editions. 
(3) The plan and contents of his own work. Of the 
Prolegomena Dr. Scrivener says, "Though, by this 
time too far behind the present state of knowledge to 
bear reprinting, they comprise a monument of learning 
such as the world has seldom seen, and contain much 
information the student will not even now easily find 
elsewhere.'' His New Testament was republished in 
folio, in 1710, at Amsterdam and Rotterdam, by 
Ludolph Kuster, who arranged in its proper places 
the matter which Mill had put into his appendix, 
because he had received it too late for incorporation 
into his critical notes. He added the readings of 
twelve fresh manuscripts. He was the first to give a 
definite statement of the number of various readings 
in the New Testament text, estimating them at thirty 
thousand, a number which appears trifling in the light 
of later critical results. 1 

1 Mill's Testament was attacked by Dr. Whitby in 1710. The 
details of the controversy may be read in Tregelles's Printed 



MAESTRICHT, TOINARD, AND WELLS 69 

Gerhard von Maestricht, Toinard, Wells. — The year Gerhard von 
after the appearance of Krister's Mill, Gerhard von Testament. 8 
Maestricht published at Amsterdam a ]STew Testament 
in 8vo, containing all the critical matter of Fell's 
edition, a collation of one Vienna manuscript, forty- 
three canons for the examination of various readings 
and discussions upon them, with other matter, es- 
pecially parallel texts. The text is Fell's. A second 
improved edition was issued in 1735. This appears 
to have been the first attempt to lay down canons for 
various readings. 1 

The Evangeliorum Harmonia G-rceco-Latina of Nich- Toinard's 
olas Toinard, of Orleans, was published in the same Sarmonia - 
year as Mill's Xew Testament. Toinard was the 
first Koman Catholic since Erasmus, and the last be- 
fore Scholtz (1830), who undertook a critical edition. 
In his Prolegomena he announces that he has made a 
Greek Testament according to the two oldest Vatican 
codices and the Old Latin Version, where it agreed 
with them. He was thus working on the same prin- 
ciple afterward proposed by Bentley. 2 

Edward Wells put forth an edition, 1709-19, in ten Wells's 
parts, containing a Greek text, an English version Testament, 
and paraphrase, critical and exegetical notes, and 
historical dissertations. More boldly than his prede- 
cessors, he introduced new manuscript readings into 
the text. His text was marked by frequent departures 

Text. It called out Richard Bentley's celebrated monograph, 
Remarks upon a Discourse of Free-thinking, by Phileleutherus 
Lipsiensis. See Teschendorf, Prolegomena, 224-227. Scrive- 
ner, Introduction, II, 200. Tregelles, Printed Text, 41-49. 
Hort, Westcott and Hort's New Testament, Introduction, 180. 
J. H. Monk, Life of Richard Bentley, D.D., London, 1833. 

1 See Teschendorf, Prolegomena, 229. Scrivener, Introduc- 
tion, II, 204. 

2 See Teschendorf, Prolegomena, 227 f. Reuss characterises 
the Harmonia as '-liber rarissimus. " 



70 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Bentley's 
Proposals. 



Bentley's 
hypothesis. 



from the Elzevir, and his agreement with later critics, 
as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Teschendorf, is note- 
worthy. 1 

It will be noticed that in Toinard and Wells there 
appear signs of restlessness under the pressure of the 
Textus Eeceptus, a growing tendency to emphasise 
manuscript authority, and attempts at a reconstruction 
of the text; while in Gerhard von Maestricht, as in 
Mill, we see signs of a movement toward the classifi- 
cation of documents. 

Bentley. — This " glimpse of the genealogical 
method," which was the most important contribution 
to the criticism of the period between Mill and Lach- 
mann, received a more definite development in the 
Proposals of Eichard Bentley, Master of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. In 1691 he had urged Mill to 
publish in parallel columns the Greek text of A and 
the Graeco-Latin texts of D, D 2 , and E 2 . In 1720 he 
issued his Proposals for printing an edition of the 
Greek New Testament and the New Testament of the 
Vulgate Version, " per Stum. Hieronymum ad vetusta 
exemplaria Graeca castigatae et exactae," both from the 
most ancient codices, Greek and Latin. The Propo- 
sals closed with the last chapter of the Apocalypse in 
Greek and Latin as a specimen. 

Bentley's hypothesis was, that the oldest manu- 
scripts of the Greek original and of Jerome's Vulgate 
resemble each other so closely that, by means of this 
agreement, he could restore the text as it stood in the 
fourth century, so that there should not be a difference 
of twenty words, or even particles. " By taking two 
thousand errors out of the Pope's Vulgate (the Clemen- 
tine), and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephen 
(ed. of 1550), I can set out an edition of each in col- 
umns, without using any book under nine hundred 

1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 228. 



BICHARD BENTLEY 71 

years old, that shall so exactly agree, word for word, 
and order for order, that no two tallies nor two inden- 
tures can agree better." In order to confirm the read- 
ings introduced into the text, he proposed to make use 
of the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Ethiopic Versions, and 
of all the Greek and Latin Fathers within the first five 
centuries, and to exhibit all the various readings within 
those five centuries. 

For the prosecution of this design it was necessary Collections 
that the manuscripts of the Vulgate should be collated tSns C for^" 
as carefully as those of the Greek Testament; and Bentiey's 
much work both in collection and collation was done wor ' 
by Bentley himself, and by his colleague, John Walker, 
in Paris, by Chevalier in Tours, and Casley in Oxford. 
Their collations are preserved in the Library of 
Trinity College, Cambridge. 1 They are more on the 
Latin Vulgate than on the original Greek. The most 
valuable of the collations, that of B, was procured 
about 1720, at Bentiey's expense, and by the labour of 
the Abbate Mico, and was revised by Abbate Eulotta 
in 1729. 

These collations are all that remain of Bentiey's Importance 
enterprise, for the work itself never appeared. Yet p 0S ^ s . 
the Proposals mark an important step in the his- 
tory of textual criticism. They indicate an advance 
toward discrimination in the selection and use of 
Greek manuscripts, and a frank and vigorous protest 
against the tyranny of the Textus Eeceptus. Bentley 
was the first to lay down the great principle that the 
whole text is to be formed on evidence, apart from 
the influence of any edition. He declared that after 
the Complutenses and Erasmus, who had but very 
ordinary manuscripts, the New Testament became the 
property of booksellers, and that Stephen's text stood 
as if an apostle was his compositor. He described 
1 See Catalogue in Scrivener's Introduction, II, 89 f. 



72 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Bentley's 
views of the 
state of 
textual 
criticism. 



Stephen as the Protestant Pope. Of the text of the 
Vulgate he asserted that Popes Sixtus and Clement 
were incompetent to execute its revision, since they 
were mere theologians, without experience in manu- 
scripts, using inferior Greek copies, and mistaking 
later copies for earlier. He perceived the division-line 
between the old and the late codices, and insisted that 
the ancient manuscripts are the witnesses of the an- 
cient text. He was even prepared to dismiss from con- 
sideration the testimony of the whole mass of modern 
copies. 

"The New Testament," wrote Bentley, "has been 
under a hard fate since the invention of printing. 

"After the Complutenses and Erasmus, who had but 
very ordinary manuscripts, it became the property of 

booksellers No heathen author has had such 

ill fortune. Terence, Ovid, etc., for the first century 
after printing, went about with twenty thousand errors 
in them. But when learned men undertook them, and 
from the oldest manuscripts set out correct editions, 
those errors fell and vanished. But if they had kept 
to the first published text, and set the various lec- 
tions only in the margin, those classic authors would 
be as clogged with variations as Dr. Mill's Testa- 
ment is. 

" Popes Sixtus and Clement, at a vast expense, had 
an assembly of learned divines to recense and adjust 
the Latin Vulgate, and then enacted their new edition 
authentic; but I find, though I have not discovered 
anything done dolo malo, they were quite unequal to 
the affair. They were mere theologi, and had no ex- 
perience in manuscripts, nor made good use of Greek 
copies, and followed books of five hundred years before 
those of double age. Nay, I believe they took these 
new ones for the older of the two ; for it is not every- 
body knows the age of a manuscript." 



BICHABB BENTLEY 73 

Bentley's proposals were comprised in eight para- Proposals in 



graphs : the first spoke of the actual condition of the 
printed Greek Testament and the Latin Vulgate, and 
the importance of the service of revising both, on the 
authority of manuscripts of more than a thousand years 
old. The second related to the view which Bentley 
took of certain passages in St. Jerome " where he de- 
clares, that (without making a new version) he adjusted 
and reformed the whole Latin Vulgate to the best 
Greek exemplars, that is to say, to those of the famous 
Origen," and also of the passage containing Jerome's 
statement that the order even of the words is im- 
portant in translations of Holy Scripture. Prom these 
passages he concluded that the oldest Greek and Latin 
copies ought to agree both in words and in their order, 
"and upon making the essay (he says) he has suc- 
ceeded in his conjecture beyond his expectation or 
even his hopes. " In the third paragraph he states his 
belief that the mass of various readings may, from his 
collations, be so reduced in number as to leave only about 
two hundred places in which the true text of a passage 
can be a matter of doubt. In the fourth, he says that 
he uses as subsidiary, in order to confirm the readings 
which he adopts, " all the old versions, Syriac, Coptic, 
Gothic, and Ethiopic, and all the Fathers, Greeks 
and Latins, within the first five centuries " ; and he 
gives in his notes all the various readings (now known) 
within the said five centuries. So that the reader has 
under one view what the first ages of the church knew 
of the text ; and what has crept into any copies since 
is of no value or authority. In the fifth paragraph, 
Bentley disclaims the use of conjecture altogether in 
the text itself of the sacred volume ; the notes are to 
contain all the evidence on which every word rests ; 
and also the common readings of Stephen's Greek and 
Clement the VHIth's Latin are to be plainly exhibited. 



detail. 



74 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



Conyers 
Middleton 
attacks the 
Proposals. 



Bentley's 
faith in his 
hypothesis 
weakened. 



In the sixth, the reader is told that any conjectures of 
the editor will be given, as such, in the Prolegomena, 
in which, also, there was promised a full account of 
the manuscripts, etc., used. The seventh paragraph 
informed the reader of the terms of subscription, three 
guineas for smaller paper, five for large. The conclud- 
ing paragraph promised that the edition should be put 
to press as soon as a sufficient sum was subscribed. 

Bentley's proposals were attacked in an anonymous 
pamphlet by Conyers Middleton, which was severely 
replied to in another anonymous pamphlet, commonly 
attributed to Bentley. Middleton rejoined in a longer 
and abler pamphlet ; but he was no match for Bentley, 
and his reply did not bear upon the critical points at 
issue. An unhappy consequence of the controversy 
was the impression that criticism could not be safely 
applied to the text of the New Testament, and that 
it is better to retain traditional readings without 
evidence than to revise them according to competent 
testimony. 

Had Bentley's edition appeared, it would have pre- 
sented an invaluable body of critical materials. It 
would have been an important contribution to the 
establishment of a settled text, and a severe blow at 
the traditional Textus Beceptus. His text would have 
been that of the Greek manuscripts which resemble the 
oldest copies of the Vulgate ; but this would have been 
only the text current in the West, and not that of the 
whole body of Christian readers in the third and fourth 
centuries. 

But this hypothesis of substantial identity between 
the oldest Greek and Latin copies was more favoured 
by A than by any other really ancient document. 
The impossibility of settling the text by the applica- 
tion of this principle appears to have grown upon him, 
especially after his acquaintance with the Vatican 



critics. 



BENTLEY, MIDDLETON AND MACE 75 

readings; and it is to this that some impute the 
abandonment of his project. 1 

Mace. — The revolt against the Textus Eeceptus was Mace antici- 
continued by William (or Daniel) Mace, a Fellow of f n a gf f ead " 
Gresham College, London, who published anonymously, modern 
in 1729, a Greek and English Diglott, with the title 
The New Testament in Greek and English, contain- 
ing the Original Text corrected from the Authority of 
the Most Authentic Manuscripts, etc. His emenda- 
tions agree remarkably with readings approved by 
critics of this day. Reuss speaks of him as one whom 
his contemporaries unjustly persecuted, and whom 
more recent critics much more unjustly consign to 
oblivion. 2 

1 See Tregelles, Printed Text, 57-68. Teschendorf, Prole- 
gomena, 231. Wordsworth, White, and Sanday, Old Latin Bib- 
lical Texts, I, XXV. J. H. Monk, Life of Bichard Bentley, 
D.D. The Works of Bichard Bentley, D.D., collected and 
edited by A. Dyce, London, 1836. Bentlei et Doctorum Viro- 
rum ad eum Epistoloe, 2d ed., Leipzig, 1825. 

2 As Scrivener, Introduction, II, 210, "The anonymons 
text and version of William Mace, said to have been a Presby- 
terian minister, are alike unworthy of serious notice, and have 
long since been forgotten." These words, in which Dr. Scrive- 
ner apparently echoes Tregelles {Printed Text, 65), are in 
marked contrast with the remarks of Dr. C. R. Gregory, in his 
Prolegomena to Tischendorf's 8th ed., 240. Nestle also alludes 
to him as perhaps the boldest deviator from the Received Text 
(Einfuhrung, 15). 



CHAPTER IX 

THE FIRST PERIOD (1516-1770). MOVEMENT 
TOWARD THE GENEALOGICAL METHOD 



Recognition 
of the rela- 
tionship of 
documents. 



Statement 
of certain 
features of 
later criti- 
cism neces- 
sary for 
understand- 
ing the 
remaining 
history. 



Textual Criticism now began to feel its way toward 
a new method, through the growing recognition of the 
relationship of documents, foreshadowed by Mill and 
Bentley. This led up to the classification of all docu- 
ments by families — a principle which was first clearly 
announced by Bengel in 1734. This principle shapes 
the whole subsequent development of New Testament 
textual criticism. In order that the remaining stages 
of the history may be understood, it will be necessary 
to anticipate certain features of later criticism. 

It may be well to remind the reader once more that 
the problem of Textual Criticism is to extract from all 
attainable sources, as nearly as possible, the original 
text of the author ; and that this process involves the 
comparison of thousands of various readings, and the 
selection of those which represent the purest text. 

No sound decision as to the comparative value of 
readings can be reached by a merely numerical process, 
that is to say, by giving preference to that reading 
which is contained in the majority of manuscripts ; for 
it cannot be asserted that a reading has the majority 
of witnesses, until all known manuscripts have been 
collated, and all unknown manuscripts have been dis- 
covered and collated. There may be enough manu- 
scripts unknown and uncollated to turn the scale in 
favour of a rejected reading. Moreover, this process 

76 



QUALITY, NOT NUMBER, OF MANUSCRIPTS 77 



takes account only of the number, and not at all of the 
quality, of the witnesses. The united value of the 
readings of ten manuscripts may not equal that of four 
others. The ten may all be of late date and inferior 
quality, while the four may include two or three of the 
earliest and best. v 

Thus the clause dXXa pvo-at 77/xas a-n-b tov Trovrjpov, " de- 
liver us from the evil one," which is attested by every 
known authority in Matt. 6 : 13, is omitted by the 
highest textual authorities from Luke xi. 4. Yet the 
evidence in its favour, numerically considered, is very 
strong. It is found in ACDEFGHKMRSUVrAATT, 
in a number of cursives, in the Old Latin b cfffi I q, 
and in the Bohairic, Peshitto, Curetonian and Harclean 
Syriac, and the Ethiopic Versions. But it is wanting 
in & and B. B does not contain it at all, and & only by 
a hand three centuries later than the first. Again, in 
Mark 7 : 19, eight later uncials and hundreds of cursives 
have the Received reading Ka6ap%ov iravra ra /?/3w/xara, 
" purging all meats," the neuter participle " purging " 
agreeing with the clause "goeth forth into the 
draught." On the other hand, KABEFGHLSXA 
and three Fathers have KaOapi&v, the masculine partici- 
ple, referring to Christ, "This he said, making all 
meats clean." The numerical superiority is with the 
former reading; the weight, both of authority and 
sense, is with the latter. 

Neither can a sound conclusion be reached on the 
basis of the comparative age of manuscripts. The 
important point is the age of the text contained in 
the manuscript relatively to the autograph. A manu- 
script of the fourth century may have been copied from 
one only a little older than itself, and that in turn 
from one only a little older ; while a manuscript of the 
eleventh century may have been copied from one of 
the third century, and that from the autograph. 



No correct 
decision on 
readings by 
a merely 
numerical 
process. 



Nor on the 
basis of the 
comparative 
age of manu- 
scripts. 



78 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



An ancient 
text not 
necessarily 
a pure text. 



Intrinsic 
and Tran- 
scriptional 
evidence. 



Caution in 
the use of 
intrinsic 
probability. 



But an ancient text is not necessarily a pure text. 
Some of the worst textual corruptions liad entered in 
the second century. Therefore the readings must be 
scrutinised in order to discover what evidence they 
afford of their own purity. To this process two kinds 
of evidence are applied, Intrinsic and Transcriptional. 
By Intrinsic evidence is meant that which is furnished 
by knowledge of the writer's style and habits of 
thought ; by grammatical considerations, the nature of 
the context, etc. This kind of evidence goes to show 
which of several readings of a passage is most likely 
to have proceeded from the writer's own hand. By 
Transcriptional evidence is meant that which is de- 
rived from knowledge of the habits of scribes, and of 
the accidents to which they are liable in the process 
of transcription. This class of evidence goes to show 
which one of several readings the copyist is likely to 
have had before him, and which one is most likely to 
have been changed into the several various readings. 

In the matter of intrinsic probability it is easy to 
make a mistake. Conclusions founded upon it are to 
be accepted with great caution, because of the ten- 
dency of the critic to form his conclusion from his 
own point of view or his own environment, rather 
than from those of the author. Thus, intrinsic proba- 
bility seems to point to the omission of the words, 
" Make me as one of thy hired servants," from Luke 
15 : 21, repeating the words of ver. 19. From our 
point of view it seems unlikely that the restored son, 
with the full assurance of pardon, would repeat the 
request which he had proposed to himself before his 
experience of the riches of fatherly love and forgive- 
ness. A large number of manuscripts and most of the 
versions omit the words. Westcott and Hort bracket 
them ; Tischendorf rejects them. Yet we cannot rest 
solely on intrinsic probability from our point of view. 



INTRINSIC EVIDENCE 79 

The words are attested by K B D U X. Similarly, a 
critic may light on an ungrammatical reading and be 
tempted to emend on the ground of the intrinsic im- 
probability of the writer's grammatical blunder; yet a 
larger acquaintance with his habits of composition 
may greatly diminish that improbability. So of awk- 
wardness of style, or inconsistency. Because Phil. 
1 : 22 presents a very awkward construction, because 
Kom. 5 : 12 introduces us to a puzzling parenthetical 
passage, it cannot be certainly inferred that Paul orig- 
inally wrote these in a less awkward form, and that 
corruptions have crept into the text, for Paul's writ- 
ings are full of such instances. 

There are rare instances in which intrinsic proba- intrinsic 
bility may carry the day even against strong manu- occas^onalTv 
script evidence. In Mark 6 : 22, & B D L A give prevails 
>\/j/ «zi * » *» «xt s '£ * > against 

eicreAvovcrYjs ttjs uvyarpos avrov ripcodiaoos kcll opxrjcra- manuscript 

/xevr;?, "His daughter Herodias having entered in evidence. 
and danced." This reading appears in the text of 
Westcott and Hort. Yet, in the face of such manu- 
script evidence, it is safe to say that Mark could not 
have intended this. The statement directly contra- 
dicts Josephus, who says that the name of the damsel 
was Salome, and that she was the daughter of Herod 
Philip, by Herodias, who did not leave her husband 
until after Salome's birth. It is, moreover, most im- 
probable that even Herod the Tetrarch would have 
allowed his own daughter thus to degrade herself. 

Conclusions as to transcriptional probability are Transcrip- 
somewhat more reliable because of our knowledge of ti 1 ". J i 1 P rob ~ 

., TTT , . , ability more 

the habits of scribes. We can detect with some accu- reliable, 
racy motives for intentional alteration and reasons for 
unintentional errors. It is easy to understand how a 
scribe might think himself in duty bound to play the 
part of a corrector, and conform an unfamiliar in- 
flexion or quotation or construction to forms familiar 



80 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Intentional 
alterations 
from the 
desire to 
amplify. 



Insertions of 
readings of 
one Gospel 
in another. 



to himself. He might think it incumbent on him 
to change rjXOare, rjXOav, into rjXOtTt, rj\6ov\ or to alter 
A^/xi^o/xai and 7rpo(T(xyiro\r]fi\l/La into At^o/xcu and 7r/ooo-o>- 
7roXrj\j/ta for the sake of euphony; or to write ^/xe/oas 
instead of rj^ipai in Matt. 15 : 32, on the ground that 
correct grammar required the accusative of duration. 
Or, again, he might substitute Kpd£av and (nrapd£av for 
Kpd£as and (T7rapd£as in Matt. 9 : 26, in order to make 
the participles agree with the neuter 7n/e£/xa. The cor- 
rect reading in Mark 1:2 is evrw 'Ho-ata ra> irpo^TY), 
"in Isaiah the prophet;" but it is apparent that 
some scribe found it difficult or impossible to account 
for the fact that the quotation from Isa. 40 : 3, " The 
voice of one crying," etc., is preceded by a quotation 
from Mai. 3:1, " Behold I send my messenger," etc. ; 
and accordingly substituted iv rots Trpo^rais, " in the 
prophets." 

Intentional alterations may also have proceeded 
from the desire to amplify. It is well known that 
copyists were in the habit of making a quoted passage, 
for instance, as full as possible, through fear of losing 
something which the writer had said. For example, 
Matt. 15 : 8. The Eeceived Text is iyyi&L fxoL 6 Aaos 

OVTOS TO) (TTOjAOLTL aVTCOV, KCU TOLS \€.[\e(TL fJL€ Ti/Xa, " This 

people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and 
honoureth me with their lips." The best modern texts 
read 6 Aaos ovtos to7<s \€.Ckexri fie rt/xa, "This people hon- 
oureth me with their lips." At least fourteen uncials 
support the longer reading, yet the weight of authority 
is in favour of the shorter : K B D L T, Vulgate, Cure- 
tonian, Armenian, iEthiopic, Origen, Chrysostom. The 
Eeceived Text is most probably an amplification of 
the shorter and genuine reading. 

It is also well known how habitually copyists in- 
serted in one Gospel the readings of another, so as to 
bring them into agreement. There is not a manu- 



TRANSCRIPTIONAL EVIDENCE 



81 



script or a version that has not suffered more or less 
in this manner. 

As for unintentional errors, there are many ways in 
which they have slipped into the text; as by con- 
founding letters of similar appearance, omitting an 
entire verse when two successive lines or sentences 
end with the same word, and the scribe has mistaken 
the second ending for that which he has just writ- 
ten ; misreadings of abbreviations ; adopting marginal 
glosses into the text, etc. See Chapter II. Such know- 
ledge of the habits of scribes may help us greatly in 
determining what reading the copyist is likely to have 
had before him, and which of several readings is most 
likely to have been changed into another or several 
others. In any case in which intrinsic and transcrip- 
tional probability concur, the concurrence makes in 
favour of the reading. In Phil. 1 : 7, for example, 
K B D bc E K L P repeat iv. In A D F G the second ip, 
before rrj dTroAoyta, is omitted. Now intrinsic proba- 
bility is in favour of the repetition of the iv, because 
there are two distinct specifications, "in my bonds" 
and " in the defence and confirmation of the Gospel." 
But the copyist omitted iv before tyj airoXoyta, because 
he did not find it before /3e/?cuaW, not observing that 
it was not needed before that word because /?e/3atwo-ct 
was included with rrj airoXoyCa under one article. Thus 
transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability 
concur in favour of the repetition of iv. 

Again, take the manifest solecism in Phil. 2 : 2, 
tis o-TrAayx^ which is overwhelmingly supported by 
all the principal uncials and by nearly all the versions, 
while the proper, grammatical reading, nva, appears in 
only a few minuscules and Fathers. Intrinsic proba- 
bility is entirely against the attested reading, and tran- 
scriptional probability clearly points to a copyist's 
hasty and careless repetition of ns from the preceding 



Causes of 
uninten- 
tional 
errors. 



Concur- 
rence of in- 
trinsic and 
transcrip- 
tional prob- 
ability. 



82 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



Scrutiny of 
separate 
readings 
must be sup- 
plemented 
by study of 
documents 
as wholes. 



clause. Another instance may be found in Phil. 2 : 15, 
where the correct reading is a/xa>//,a, according to K A B C. 
But D F G K LP read d/xco/^ra. Paul is citing Deut. 
32 : 5. 'A/xw^ros does not occur in the LXX, but 
fxo)fxrjrd " blameworthy " appears in that passage. 
Hence, while it is intrinsically probable that Paul wrote 
a/xwiia, it is transcriptionally probable that the scribe, 
finding /xco/^rd in the LXX, changed d/xw/xa into d/xa^t^-rd 
to correspond. 

But, valuable as this internal evidence for separate 
readings is, it cannot be trusted by itself. Scrutiny of 
separate readings must be supplemented by the study 
of the several documents as wholes. It is fair to assume 
that the credibility of a reading, however plausible on 
grounds of intrinsic and transcriptional evidence, may 
be affected by the general credibility of the document 
or class of documents in which it appears. It is quite 
possible that a reading approved by internal evidence 
should be found in a document or a class of documents 
which show signs of corruption. That fact would not 
conclusively discredit the reading, but it would lay it 
open to suspicion. Let it be constantly borne in mind 
that we have nothing to do with the doctrinal or other 
qualities and bearings of the text. The sole object is 
to reach the text itself in its primitive form. It is a 
very simple and generally accepted principle that our 
estimate of the particular details of a book is to be 
affected and modified by the general character of the 
book. Any biography of Luther, for instance, may 
contain truthful details ; yet if a question should arise 
as to the correctness of any detail, our judgment 
would be inevitably and justly modified by the charac- 
teristics of the biography at large. We could not help 
noting that D'Aubigne deals in wordy panegyric ; that 
Audin betrays strong partisan tendencies ; that a dis- 
tinct theological bias pervades the treatment of Luther 



AGE OF TEXT 



83 



by Newman, Bossuet, and Mozley, and that all these 
are in strong contrast with the sober, dispassionate 
accuracy of Kostlin. Thus we reach the accepted prin- 
ciple of textual criticism, that knowledge of documents 
must precede formal judgment on readings. 

This principle requires the student to consider the 
age of documents and the age of the texts which they 
contain — two quite distinct questions, since a late 
document may have been copied from an early text. 
It is unsafe to estimate the weight of a document by 
its age alone. Its real weight depends upon the age of 
its text. This must first be settled by the careful and 
minute collation of versions and citations, noting all 
readings which prove themselves to be ancient. Then 
each manuscript is to be compared with this list of 
readings, and any manuscript found to contain a con- 
siderable proportion of these or of older readings 
may be noted as containing an ancient text. If we 
find a number of manuscripts exhibiting a text similar 
to this, the collected readings of all these will repre- 
sent, generally, the character of the earlier text. 

This is a great point gained, yet it still remains to 
show that this early text is a pure text. The purity of 
a text does not follow from its early date. We know, 
for example, that extensive corruptions had found their 
way into the text of the second century. Accordingly, 
since our earliest witnesses differ at certain points, we 
are compelled to push our examination farther, and to 
test the purity of the text. Here we are thrown back 
again upon internal evidence, and the only kinds of 
evidence we have are those already applied to separate 
readings, namely, intrinsic and transcriptional evi- 
dence ; only we now apply these two kinds of evidence 
to whole documents, instead of to individual readings 
merely. By comparing the readings of two documents 
in all their variations, we obtain the materials for 



Knowledge 
of docu- 
ments 
must pre- 
cede judg- 
ment on 
readings. 



Weight of 
documents 
depends on 
age of text. 



An early- 
text not 
necessarily 
a pure text. 



84 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Intrinsic 
and tran- 
scriptional 
evidence ap- 
plied to 
documents. 



Not reason- 
ing in a 
circle. 



I 



ascertaining the leading merits and defects of each. 
There are usually enough readings which strong intrin- 
sic and strong transcriptional probability combine in 
attesting, to enable us to reach a sound judgment. 
Suppose that we are required to pronounce upon the 
comparative textual purity of two documents, repre- 
sented by T and X. We shall first note all their points 
of difference. Next, we shall proceed to discover 
which reading, in each case, approves itself as origi- 
nal according to the tests of transcriptional and in- 
trinsic evidence. We thus obtain two lists of readings, 
and can easily determine what proportion of original 
readings is contained in each. If T shall be found to 
contain the larger proportion of preferred readings, and 
X to contain habitually the rejected rival readings, we 
are entitled to conclude that the text of T has been 
transmitted in comparative purity, and that the text 
of X has suffered comparatively large corruption. Not 
only so, but the purer character of T thus shown may 
affect our decision in the case of certain readings pre- 
ferred in X, and lead us to revise and possibly to 
change it. The same process would be pursued if we 
had a dozen or fifty or two hundred documents in- 
stead of two. 

It might be objected, indeed, that we employ the 
evidence of separate readings in order to reach our 
estimate of the value of the text of a document as a 
whole, and that therefore, when it is said that the 
relative textual value of each document must be fixed 
before we are in a position to decide upon separate 
readings, we are reasoning in a circle. But the pro- 
cess by which we determined the value of the docu- 
ment as a whole is tentative. Our general estimate 
may be sound, although we may not be able to trust 
absolutely all our impressions as to the probabilities 
of reading. The general conclusion as to the docu- 



PLATE VI 



- .NN 



I 



OQ 

Pi 

<< 
2^ 






*3 ^1 



i *~ |* Ji-c. i 

IfS.I SIS -si 

if e.* ^" if 



a =h 



I BE 

IP 

1 S 1J 



*4 

© 

< co 



z * .alJi'iiiil 



tie* . ^H-J^lS^ 












85 Susl 




°-3 

hO 

C 

< 



. £<± &^T § " 5 
^*:d ..jl 5 

.4 -u -i i v ? 







3:4 4- ~ 

k 5 8 n 




lp : l*fp 



*2 *£* ^ 5 



J! 
s I 

u Ti 

« J 

6. I 
© I 

*H 7, 



nil-! 



w« ••• x < *■ .. -r 



a < -jz <h •• 



Facsimile of Extracts from a Page of Walton's Polyglot, showing the 
Versions of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Chapter I, in Latin, Greek, 
Syrtac, and Ethiopic, on the same Page 
(Size of original page, from which one-half has been reproduced, 15£ in. x 9* in., not including margins. 



TBEGELLES'S CLASSIFICATION 85 

ment as a whole does not imply that our estimate of 
every separate reading has been correct. In studying 
the intrinsic and transcriptional evidence of readings 
" we endeavour to deal with each variation separately, 
and to decide between its variants immediately, on 
the evidence presented by the variation itself in its 
context, aided only by general considerations. In the 
other case (estimating the comparative textual value 
of entire documents) we begin with virtually perform- 
ing the same operation, but only tentatively, with a 
view to collect materials, not final results ; on some 
variations we can without rashness predict at this 
stage our ultimate conclusions ; on many more we can 
estimate various degrees of probability; on many 
more again, if we are prudent, we shall be content to 
remain for the present in entire suspense. ISText, we 
pass from investigating the readings to investigating 
the documents by means of what we ha,ve learned 
respecting the readings. Thirdly, we return to the 
readings, and go once more over the same ground 
as at first, but this time making a tentative choice 
of readings simply in accordance with documentary 
authority." * 

The results of this comparative criticism applied Tregelles's 
to New Testament documents may be illustrated by tion S ofdocu- 
Tregelles's classification. (1) Uncials of the most ments. 
ancient class, those earlier than the seventh century, 
XBDZ. (2) Good later uncials which frequently 
accord with these, L X A. (3) Important cursives, 
generally supporting the most ancient documents, 1, 
22, 33, 39, 209. (4) Later uncials. 2 

Yet the estimate of the character of documents by individual 

this process is not exhaustive. The problem would documents 
1 • -i • p -I i i i not homo- 

be simpler it each document were homogeneous ; but geneous. 

1 Hort, Introduction, § 40. 

2 Account of the Printed Text of the New Testament, 132. 



86 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Criticism 
investigates 
the rationale 
of the com- 
bination of 
documents. 



Genealogy 
of docu- 
ments. 



such, is not the case. A document may be sound in 
one part and unsound in another. A manuscript 
containing several books may have been transcribed 
from different copies not equally good ; or the text of 
a document may have been compounded of two or 
more texts of different descent, so that the document 
has a divided individuality. In such cases a body of 
readings common to a group of manuscripts represents 
parts of a manuscript which, for these parts, lay at 
the root of all the manuscripts in the group. This 
process of grouping does not account for the combina- 
tion of the manuscripts. It simply evolves the fact of 
combination. Criticism, then, goes one step farther, 
and inquires into the rationale of the combination. It 
proceeds upon the principle that all trustworthy 
restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study 
of their history; that is, of the relations of descent 
or affinity which connect the several documents. It 
classifies documents according to their origin, and 
arranges the several groups in a genealogical tree, 
which exhibits their common or proximate origin. 
" The practice of internal evidence of groups is inde- 
pendent of any genealogical considerations. It pro- 
ceeds, and must proceed, in utter ignorance of all 
genealogies. . . . All it knows is, Here are docu- 
ments united. All it asks is, Do they form a good 
or a bad combination ? Yet, behind internal evidence 
of groups, the student will see genealogies clamouring 
for recognition. He notes the peculiarities of the 
groupings, — some groups frequently occurring, others, 
apparently equally possible, never occurring at all. He 
notes the verdicts of internal evidence of groups, — 
some groups uniformly condemned, others, apparently 
just like them, almost as uniformly commended. . . . 
The student would be something other than human if 
he did not wish to know the cause of all this. And 



GENEALOGY OF MANUSCRIPTS 8? 

the hope lies close that all may be explained, and a 
new and powerful engine of criticism be put into our 
hands by the investigation of the genealogical affilia- 
tions of the manuscripts, which are suggested by these 
facts. The results of internal evidence of groups 
suggest not only the study of genealogies, but also 
certain genealogical facts on which that study may 
be begun. Every one must suspect that manuscripts 
that are frequently in company are close of kin. 
Every one must suspect that the groups which support 
little else but corruptions are composed of the remain- 
ing representatives of a corrupt stock. Everybody 
must perceive that if such hints are capable of being 
followed out, and the New Testament documents 
arranged in accordance with their affiliations, we shall 
have a means of reaching the true text which will 
promise more than all other methods combined." 1 

Bengel. — The principle of classifying manuscripts 
by families was first definitely propounded by John 
Albrecht Bengel, Superintendent of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church of Wurternburg, and widely known 
to New Testament students by his Gnomon Novi 
Testamenti . 

In 1725 Bengel attached to an edition of Chrysos- Bengel's 
tom's Be Sacerdotio his Prodromus Novi Testamenti Testament. 
Grceci recte cauteque adomandi, in which he fore- 
shadowed the characteristics of his edition of the 
New Testament, which appeared in 1734. The title 
of his New Testament set forth that the text was to 
exhibit the " marrow " of approved editions, the mar- 
gin a selection of parallel passages and various read- 
ings, distributed into their classes, and the critical 
apparatus the compendium, supplement, and fruit of 
sacred criticism, especially Mill's. The text was in 

1 Professor B. B. Warfleld, Textual Criticism of the New 
Testament. 



88 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

two columns, and the lower margin exhibited various 
readings in five classes: " genuine, better than the 
readings in the text, equal to the readings in the text, 
inferior, not to be approved." The Apparatus Criti- 
cus, forming the second part of the work, contained 
an elaborate dissertation on the Criticism of the New 
Testament Text. A small edition appeared the same 
year at Stuttgart, without the critical apparatus. He 
collated sixteen manuscripts, but not thoroughly. He 
did not propose to give all the readings of these manu- 
scripts, but only the more important. He stated the 
evidence for and against each reading. 

Bengel clearly perceived that no reliance was to be 
placed on evidence drawn from the mere numerical 
majority of readings apart from their origin and char- 
acter ; and that, therefore, witnesses were to be weighed 
and not counted. He was the first to recognise clearly 
the importance of the principle of transcriptional proba- 
bility, viz. that it was more probable that a copyist 
would try to explain an obscure passage, or to make a 
hard construction easier, than that he would make 
difficult what was already easy. Hence his familiar 
The difficult canon, " The difficult is to be preferred to the easy 
^preferred rea( ling " (" Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua"). The 
to the easy text, arranged in paragraphs, exhibits an intentional 
departure from the Receptus, marked nevertheless by 
extreme caution, since he refused to admit, except in 
the Apocalypse, any reading which had not appeared 
in one or more preceding editions. 

BengePs chief title to notice as a textualist lies, as 
already intimated, in his fuller recognition and appli- 
cation of the principle of families of texts ; all extant 
witnesses being thrown into companies, families, tribes, 
and nations. 1 

1 His own statement of his principle may be seen at length 
in Scrivener's Introduction, II, 212, note. 



JT. A. BEN GEL 89 

He divided all extant documents, broadly, into an- Bengel's 
cient and modern, under the names African and Asi- man U !. es ° 
atic. The Asiatic proceeded mostly from Constantinople scripts, 
and its neighbourhood, and were inferior to the African, 
which were fewer, more ancient, and more valuable. 
The African he subdivided into two tribes, represented 
respectively by A, the only great uncial much known 
in his day, and the Old Latin Version. He held that 
no Asiatic reading was likely to be genuine unless 
supported by some African document. He did not 
thoroughly carry out his theory, partly through fear 
of exposing the truth to ridicule (" ne risuum periculo 
exponatur Veritas "). 1 

But one edition of Bengel's New Testament was 
issued. His text, however, was frequently reprinted, 
and was the standard of the revision of the Authorised 
Danish Version, made in 1745 by the authority of the 
King of Denmark. Up to the time of his death, in 
1752, he continued to enlarge and correct his critical 
apparatus, the enlarged edition of which was pub- 
lished, in 1763, under the care of Philip David 
Burk. He was particular as to punctuation, and his 

1 The list of his codices is as follows : — 

Aug. 1 : Evv 83 Dionysianus (ex Johanne Ga- 

Aug. 2 : Evv 84 gneio) Act 40 ? 

Aug. 3 : Evv 85 Gehl : Evv 89 

Aug. 4 : Evrm 24 Hirs : Evv 97 

Aug. 5 : Paul 54 Mosc : V Evv 

Aug. 6 : Act 46 Paul 55 Par. 10 : (ex Simonio) 

Aug. 7 : Apoc. 80 Uff. 1 : Mp^i 

Bas. a : EEw Uff. vel Uff. 2 : Act 45 Paul 62 

Bas. p : Evv 2 Apoc. 16 

Bas. 7 : Evv 1 Uff. 3 : Evv 101 

Byz: Evv 86 Wa * : \ ex Wolfio 

Cam : Ew (a Joachimo Came- Wo. 2 : J 
rario conlati) 



90 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



J. J. Wet- 
stein. 
His Prole- 
gomena. 



Assails Ben- 
gel's critical 
principles. 



division into paragraphs was frequently adopted in 
England. 1 

Wetstein and Semler. — In 1713 John James Wet- 
stein, or Wettstein, Deacon of Basle, prepared a dis- 
sertation on Various Readings in the New Testament. 
In 1716 he met Bentley in England, and at his in- 
stance went to Paris in order to collate Codex Ephraemi 
(C), which he did with great labour and patience. In 
1718 he published a specimen of various readings, 
which brought upon him a charge of Arian and So- 
cinian heresy, and resulted in his deposition and in 
his expulsion from Basle in 1730. 

In the same year his Prolegomena were published 
anonymously at Amsterdam, giving an outline of his 
proposed edition of the New Testament and an account 
of his critical authorities. The edition was described 
as " acuratissima," derived from the oldest New Testa- 
ment manuscripts, and treating of the manuscripts of 
the New Testament, the Greek writers who have made 
use of it, the ancient versions, the former editors, and 
the distinguished interpreters; besides "animadver- 
siones et cautiones " for the examination of the various 
readings of the New Testament. 

In 1735 he wrote the preface to a new edition of 
Gerhard von Maestricht's Greek Testament, in which 
he referred to the labours of Bengel, for whom he had a 
great contempt. He severely reviewed BengePs Tes- 
tament immediately upon its appearance, and endeav- 
oured to disparage the critical principles on which 

1 See Teschendorf, Prolegomena, 186, 241 f. Scrivener, Intro- 
duction, II, 210 ff. Hort, Westcott and Hort's Greek Testa- 
ment, Introduction, 180. Tregelles, Printed Text, 68-73. Life 
of Bengel, in the translation of the Gnomon by C. T. Lewis and 
M. R. Vincent, Philadelphia, 1860. J. Chr. Fr. Burk (Bengel's 
great-grandson), Johann Albrecht BengeVs Leben und Wirken, 
Stuttgart, 1831. Article " Bengel, " in Herzog's Real-Encyklo- 
pddie. E. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, Tubingen, 1893, 



WETSTEINS 9 S NEW TESTAMENT 91 

Bengel had selected his readings, asserting that read- 
ings should be adopted which are supported by the 
greatest number of manuscripts, and entirely ignoring 
the theory of families. 

In 1751-52 appeared his edition of the New Testa- Wetstein's 
ment, in two volumes folio, with various readings of Testament * 
manuscripts, other editions, Versions, and Fathers ; 
also with a commentary illustrating the history and 
force of words from ancient writers, — Hebrew, Greek, 
and Latin. The influence of the Textus Eeceptus was 
still apparent, although, in his critical remarks, he laid 
down the principle that the prescription of the com- 
mon text should have no authority whatever. His 
text was the Elzevirian with a few changes. The read- 
ings which he preferred, and which amounted to less 
than five hundred, mostly in the Apocalypse, were 
placed below the text. It is said that he adopted the 
Received Text at the request of the Remonstrants or 
Arminians, whom he had joined on leaving Basle. The 
various readings were afterward inserted in the text 
of a Greek Testament published in London, in 1763, 
by W. Bowyer. Although his Prolegomena of 1730 
had announced that his edition was to be derived from 
the oldest manuscripts, and although he had originally 
shown a disposition to take Codex A as the basis of his 
text, his views as to the oldest Greek uncials had evi- 
dently undergone a change before the publication of 
his Testament, in which he attacked the whole body of 
the older codices under the name of u codices Latini- 
zantes," as being conformed to the Latin Version. 
Everything in them which agreed with the Latin was 
denounced as an interpolation from that version. 

But notwithstanding Wetstein's defects, his services Services to 
to the cause of textual criticism were of great value. crScfsm. 
The number of manuscripts collated by him was a 
little over a hundred, and about eleven were examined 



92 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



Semler edits 
Wetstein's 
Prole- 
gomena. 



Expands 
Bengel's 
theory of 
families. 



for him by others. Besides his own collations, he 
collected the collations of Mill and others, and reex- 
amined many of the Versions and Fathers. His col- 
lations, though not up to the modern standard of 
accuracy, were more careful than had been usual. He 
was the first to investigate the Philoxenian Version. 
He was superior to Bengel as a collator, and his know- 
ledge of authorities was more extensive ; but he was not 
Bengel's equal in judgment. He was more acute in 
observing phenomena than accurate in accounting for 
them. His critical disquisitions were disfigured by 
the introduction of his personal controversies ; but his 
account of the Versions, Fathers, and early editions was 
the most extensive and methodical that had ever been 
published ; and his " animadversiones et cautiones " in 
his second volume were discriminating and valuable. 1 

Wetstein's Prolegomena were reprinted at Halle, in 
1765, by Johann Salomo Semler, Professor of Theology 
at Halle. Semler was the leader of the reaction in 
Germany against the traditional views of the canon of 
Scripture. His edition of Wetstein bore the title, 
Wetstenii Libelli ad Crisin et Interpretationem Novi 
Testamenti. It contained notes and remarks of his 
own, with facsimiles of manuscripts. He defended 
the Graeco-Latin codices against Wetstein's charges. 
Still later, in 1831, the Prolegomena were issued in a 
condensed form by J. A. Lotze, Eotterdam. 

Semler took up Bengel's theory of families and ex- 
panded it. He was the first to apply the term " Ee- 
cension " to the ancient texts, an error which has 
caused some confusion. A Recension is properly a 
work of criticism by editors ; but it is used, even by 
some modern critics, as synonymous with " family." 2 

1 A summary of the principal points is given by Tregelles, 
Printed Text, 79 f. 

2 See Tregelles, Printed Text, 84. 



THE FIRST PERIOD REVIEWED 93 

Semler classified manuscripts, at first, under two " Ke- 
censions": (1) Oriental, or that of Lucian ; (2) West- 
ern or Egypto-Palestinian, and that of Origen, agree- 
ing with the Itala, the Memphitic, and the Armenian. 
The Vulgate, he thought, proceeded from a less ancient 
text. In 1767 he made three recensions : (1) Alexan- 
drian, used by the Egyptian writers, the pupils of 
Origen, and the Syriac, Memphitic, and Ethiopic Ver- 
sions ; (2) Oriental, used at Antioch and Constantino- 
ple ; (3) Western. In the later codices he thought 
that all the recensions were mixed. Like Bengel, he 
insisted that codices were to be weighed and not num- 
bered. 1 

A review of the first period exhibits, in the begin- Review of 
ning, a scarcity of documentary sources, an arbitrary period? 
determination of the text on a false and narrow basis, 
and a general ignorance of the comparative value of 
documents. The small number of manuscripts acces- Obstacles, 
sible or used was only one of the obstacles which 
opposed the purification of the text. Scholars were 
unable to make the best choice from among those 
actually at hand, or were not accurate in comparing 
them, or estimated the value of readings according to 
their number. "In consequence of the astonishing 
number of copies which appeared at the very begin- 

1 Semler's editorial work on Wetstein is sharply criticised by 
Tregelles, Printed Text, 82. 

On Wetstein : Tischendorf , Prolegomena, 243 ff. C. R. 
Hagenbach, J. J. Wetstein der Kritiker nnd seine Gegner, 
Zeitschr.fur d. histor. Theologie, Leipzig, 1839, Bd. IX, fasc. 1. 
Tregelles, Printed Text, 73-82. Carl Bertheau, article " Wett- 
stein," Herzog's Real-Encykloplidie. 

On Semler : Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 187. A. Tholuck's 
article "Semler," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, rev. by 
Tzschirner. J. S. Semler, Hermeneutische Vorbereitung , Halle, 
1765. Id., Apparatus ad Liberalem N. T. Interpretatio?iem, 
Halle, 1767. 



94 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

ning, in a long series of manual editions, mostly from 
one and the same recension, the idea grew up spon- 
taneously very early that in the manuscripts also the 
text was tolerably uniform, and that any thorough 
revision of it was unnecessary and impertinent. The 
Oriental Versions were closed to most; the impor- 
tance of the Church Fathers was scarcely suspected ; 
but the greatest lack of all for the purification of the 
text was the indispensable knowledge of the process 
of its corruption " (Reuss). Moreover, the beginning 
of the seventeenth century was marked by the rise of 
Purist con- the Purist controversy. The Purists maintained that 
troversy. to deny that God gave the New Testament in any- 
thing but pure classical Greek was to imperil the 
doctrine of inspiration. The Wittemberg Faculty, in 
1638, decreed that to speak of barbarisms or solecisms 
in the New Testament was blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost. Hence, a correct conception of the 
peculiar idiom of the Apostles was impossible, and 
the estimate of different readings was seriously 
affected by this cause. Readings of existing edi- 
tions were arbitrarily mingled, the manuscripts em- 
ployed and the sources of variants adopted were not 
properly specified, and a full survey of the apparatus 
was impossible. 1 

The number of uncial sources, however, gradually 
increased; the existence of various readings was 
recognised, but they were merely registered, and not 
applied to the construction of a purer text. There 

1 A useful table, showing the dates at which the extant Greek 
uncials of the sixth and earlier centuries, with five others of 
later date but comparatively ancient text, have become avail- 
able as evidence from 1550 down to 1880, may be found in Dr. 
Hort's Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, 
14, 15. The table exhibits the dates of imperfect publication 
by selection of readings, of tolerably full collations, and of con- 
tinuous texts. 



THE FIRST PERIOD REVIEWED 95 

began to be signs of revolt against the authority of Signs of im- 
the Textus Eeceptus and attempts to restore the text P rovement - 
on the evidence of manuscript readings. There arose 
a growing distrust of the numerical basis of evidence. 
Manuscripts began to be weighed instead of counted. 
There was a dawning recognition of the value of 
ancient documents and a corresponding effort to 
formulate principles of classification. A large mass 
of material, relating to manuscripts, Fathers, and Ver- 
sions, was collected, which awaited thorough sifting 
and arrangement, and the doctrine of families of texts 
was broached. Through all the Eeceived Text sub- 
stantially maintained its supremacy, though its preten- 
sions were boldly challenged by individual critics ; its 
chain was rudely shaken and more than once broken, 
and its authority began to be visibly weakened. 

For twenty years after the appearance of Wetstein's 
edition little progress was made in the arrangement 
and application of the large accumulations, and no 
attempt to carry out the suggestions of Bentley, Ben- 
gel, and Semler respecting the classification of docu- 
ments. In England, the attention of students was 
directed to the study of the Hebrew Scriptures. The 
superstitious hesitancy about departing from the Re- 
ceived Text still prevailed, and the critical valuation 
of the older uncials was suffering seriously from 
Wetstein's sweeping charge of latinisation. 



CHAPTER X 



Points of 
advance in 
the second 
period in- 
augurated 
by Gries- 
bach. 



Harwood. 



Matthaei. 



THE SECOND PERIOD: TRANSITION FROM THE 
TEXTUS RECEPTUS TO THE OLDER UNCIAL 
TEXT (1770-1830). GRIESBACH 

In studying this period we shall observe an en- 
larged comparison of the three sources of the text 
and an issue of critical canons. We shall see that the 
dominion of the Textus Eeceptus is not overthrown, 
but that that text is gradually improved, and that 
there is a growing departure from it in the direction 
of an older and better text. 

The great name which marks the real inauguration 
of this period is that of John Jacob Griesbach, 1745- 
1812; but before considering his work, something 
should be said of several others from whose labours he 
derived valuable aid. 

In 1776 Edward Harwood, of London, issued an 
edition, applying the Codex Cantabrigiensis (D) in 
the Gospels and Acts, the Codex Claromontanus (D 2 ) 
in the Pauline Epistles, and the Codex Alexandrinus 
(A) where these were wanting. He departed con- 
siderably from the Elzevir text, and presented a num- 
ber of new readings, many of which are approved by 
modern critics. 

Christian Frederic Mattrunei, a Thuringian, was 
Professor at Wittemberg and afterward at Moscow, 
where he found a quantity of Greek manuscripts, both 
biblical and patristic, originally brought from Mt. 

96 



C. F. MATTHMI 97 

Athos, uncollated, and almost entirely unknown in 
Western Europe. 1 

From these materials lie prepared an edition of the 
New Testament, the first volume of which was pub- 
lished at Eiga in 1782, and the remainder at intervals 
during the next six years. The whole formed twelve 
thin volumes, each containing a preface, with fac- 
similes of manuscripts. The Greek text was accom- 
panied with a Latin Version. His second edition, in 
three volumes, 1803-1807, omitted the Latin Version 
and most of the critical notes. In this edition he 
speaks of having made collations of fresh manuscripts, 
but these have disappeared. With good scholarship, 
he was ignorant of critical principles and of what had Characters 
been accomplished by former editors, not having acntlc - 
seen, when he began, the editions of either Mill or 
Wetstein. He was unable to estimate the comparative 
value of codices. He was a laborious and thorough 
collator, but a poor critic. His prefaces were devoid 
of arrangement, and his judgments were warped by a 
hasty temper, which vented itself especially upon 
Griesbach. He utterly repudiated the theory of 
families of texts, decried the evidence of patristic 
citations, and seconded Wetstein in his depreciation 
of the earliest manuscripts. His test of the value of 
manuscripts was their agreement with those current 
in later times. The manuscripts on which his text 
was based were of inferior value, belonging to the 
family which Bengel had styled " Asiatic," and which 
Griesbach called " Constantinopolitan." His only 
claim to notice lies in his excellence as a collator. 2 

1 To him solely we are indebted for Evan. V, 237-259 ; Acts 
98-107 ; P. 113-124 ; Ap. 47-50 ; nearly all at Moscow. Full 
list in Tischendorf , Prolegomena, 249 f. 

2 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 249 f. Scrivener, Intro- 
duction, II, 216-219. Tregelles, Printed Text, 85. 

H 



98 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

Alter. Francis Karl Alter, a Jesuit of Silesia, was Pro- 

fessor of Greek at Vienna. His edition of the New 
Testament in two volumes, 8vo, Vienna, 1786-87, 
was founded on a manuscript in the Imperial Library 
at Vienna (Evan. 218, Acts 65, P. 57, Ap. 83), which 
had some value, but was not remarkable nor ancient. 
This he printed at full length, correcting scribal 
errors by Stephen's edition of 1546, and collating 
with his text twenty-one other manuscripts from the 
Vienna Library. He added readings from the Coptic 
Version, from four Slavonic Codices, and from one 
Latin Codex. 1 

Christian VII, King of Denmark, employed to 
examine manuscripts in different countries a com- 
pany consisting of Andrew Birch, a Lutheran bishop 
in Denmark, Jacob G. C. Adler, D. G. Moldenhauer, 
and 0. G. Tychsen, a distinguished Orientalist. Their 
labours were confined principally to Spain and Italy, 
and occupied several years. The results were edited 
Birch's edi- by Birch in his folio edition of the Four Gospels, 
Gos eis the Copenhagen, 1788. The text was Stephen's, 1550, to 
which were added the various readings collected by 
the company, descriptive prolegomena, and facsimiles. 
The readings of B were now published for the first 
time, partly from Birch's own collation, and partly 
from that made for Bentley. The completion of the 
edition was prevented by a fire in the printing-house 
in 1795. The various readings collected for the Acts 
and Epistles were issued in 1798, and those for the 
Apocalypse in 1800. In 1801 the readings accom- 
panying the text of the Gospels were revised, reedited, 
and printed in a form to correspond with the portions 
already issued. Tregelles says that Birch probably 
did more than any other scholar in the collation of 

1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 254. Scrivener, Introduc- 
tion, II, 220. 



J. J. GBIESBACH 



99 



manuscripts of the New Testament; and Scrivener 
speaks in high terms of his conscientiousness and 
appreciation of the difficulties of his task, and re- 
marks that he was almost the first to open to us the 
literary treasures of the Vatican, of Florence, and of 
Venice. Quite different was the work of Molden- 
hauer and Tychsen in Spain, which was performed in 
a slovenly and superficial manner, principally because 
of their dislike for Spain and its religion. 

While, as already remarked, little if anything was 
done for twenty years after Wetstein by way of apply- 
ing the accumulations of himself and of his prede- 
cessors, the work of accumulation was not arrested. 
Besides the collections of Matthaei and Birch, the 
texts of several important documents were printed, 
among them the New Testament portion of A, edited 
by Woide in 1786. Kipling published Codex D in 
1793, and Matthaei edited the Greek and Latin Codex 
G of Paul's Epistles (Boernerianus, ninth century). 
Griesbach, therefore, had the advantage of larger col- 
lections than those left by Wetstein. In the twenty 
years between the first edition of Griesbach and the 
first volume of his second edition, the materials had 
increased to double the quantity previously known. 

Griesbach was a native of Hesse Darmstadt and a 
pupil of Semler. He was, for a short time, Professor 
of Divinity at Halle, and afterward at Jena. In 1774 
he issued the first part of a Greek New Testament in 
which the first Three Gospels were arranged synopti- 
cally. The Fourth Gospel and Acts appeared in 1775, 
and also the volume containing the Epistles and the 
Apocalypse. In 1777 the first part of the work was 
reprinted with the Gospels in the usual order. This 
portion, with the issues of 1775, form Griesbach's first 
edition. The critical materials were drawn largely 
from Wetstein, but he made independent additions. 



Work of 
Molden- 
hauer and 
Tychsen. 



Important 
texts printed 
and edited. 



J. J. Gries- 
bach. His 
first edition. 



100 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Symbols^ 
Criticse and 
the second 
edition of 
the New 
Testament. 



Manual 
edition. 



Critical con- 
ditions con- 
fronting 
Griesbach. 



He did not adopt many new readings, and the Re- 
ceived Text, while not wholly followed, was taken as 
a basis. 1 He gave a number of readings in the margin, 
classified according to families. 

His Symbolce Criticce, two volumes, 1785, 1793, fur- 
ther prepared the way for his second edition. This 
had behind it twenty years of wider study, besides the 
work of Harwood, Matthaei, Birch, Alter, and others. 
The first volume appeared in 1796, the second in 1806. 
His critical apparatus was larger than in the first 
edition. In his preface he laid down his principles of 
criticism and dealt with the history of the text. He 
had studied the readings in Origen, had inspected 
Codices A and D of the Gospels, and had carefully 
examined C. Besides these he had consulted twenty- 
six manuscripts of the Gospels, ten of the Acts, fifteen 
of Paul, and one of the Apocalypse, with twelve Lec- 
tionaries of the Gospels, and two of the Apostles. He 
did not exhibit all the results of his own collations nor 
of those of his predecessors, his purpose being to use 
their material for the illustration of his own principles, 
and thus to help students to independent conclusions 
concerning readings. In 1805, the year before the issue 
of his second volume, he published a manual edition 
containing the text and the more important various 
readings, but without giving the authorities for the 
readings. This edition, differing in some places from 
the larger work, represents his matured and final con- 
clusions on the New Testament text. 

With Griesbach, really critical texts may be said to 
have begun. The critical conditions which confronted 
him were these : A vast mass of material had been 
accumulated ; many manuscripts and versions had been 
examined, but the examination had been partial ; the 



1 For details, see Teschendorf, Prolegomena, 246. 



lies. 



J. J. GBIESBACH 101 

suggestions of Bengel and Bentley concerning the classi- 
fication of manuscripts had been disregarded ; there was 
still much hesitancy about departing from the Received 
Text ; Wetstein's depreciation of the character of the 
most ancient codices had taken effect, and had greatly 
impaired the sense of their value. The task which 
lay before Griesbach was to vindicate the authority of 
the older codices, to classify authorities, and to use 
them critically and consistently for the restoration of 
the text. 

He took issue with Wetstein on the value of the His views of 
ancient manuscripts, and followed in the track of manuscripts 
Bentley, Bengel, and Semler. He adopted the family- and fami- 
theory, holding, with Bengel, a twofold division, — 
Asiatic or Byzantine and African, but, like Semler, 
dividing the African into two parts, thus making three 
classes, two ancient, and one later. These he denom- 
inated Western, Alexandrian, and Constantinopolitan. 
The Western, with its numerous glosses, represented 
the text which had been in circulation in the earlier 
times, but which, owing to the errors of copyists, re- 
quired much correction. The Alexandrian was an 
attempt to revise this text, and was marked by correc- 
tions of grammar and style. The Constantinopolitan, 
BengeFs Asiatic, flowed from the other two. The 
Western and Alexandrian existed as distinct in the 
latter part of the second century. The standard of 
the Alexandrian text was Origen. To that family 
would belong A, B, C, L (Gospels), and the Egyptian 
and some minor Versions. To the Western family 
would belong D (Gospels and Acts) and other ancient 
copies containing a Latin translation, the Old Latin 
and Vulgate, and the Latin Fathers. The Constantino- 
politan embraced the great majority of manuscripts, 
with the larger proportion of Versions and patristic 
writings. In deciding on a reading he relied chiefly 



critical 
canons. 



102 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

on the evidence furnished by union of families. The 
agreement of the Western and Alexandrian he regarded 
as particularly important, often decisive. Thus, in 
Matt. 19:17, he read tl fxe cpcoras wepl tov dyaOov', 
" Why askest thou me concerning the good ? " instead 
of tl fie Acyeis aya96v] "Why callest thou me good ? " on 
the joint evidence of B D L, the Old Latin and the Vul- 
gate. In this reading he is followed by Westcott and 
Hort and Tischendorf, and the testimony of &, which, 
of course, he did not know, has been added to that of 
his other manuscripts. 
Griesbach's Among the critical canons laid down by Griesbach 
are the following : (1) No reading must be considered 
preferable, unless it has the support of at least some 
ancient testimonies. (2) All criticism of the text turns 
on the study of recensions or classes of documents. 
Not single documents but recensions are to be counted 
in determining readings. (3) The shorter reading is to 
be preferred to the longer. This canon rests on the 
well-known tendency of scribes to amplify the text, 
and to include in it all marginal notes, glosses, etc. It 
was probably in this way that the episode of John 8 : 
1-11, and the legend of the angel troubling the waters 
of the pool of Bethzatha, John 5 : 4, slipped into the 
text. If a shorter reading is elliptical, obscure, or 
harsh, it is not unlikely that the copyist may have 
felt it to be his duty to fill out the ellipsis, or to add 
some words in order to render it less obscure or 
smoother. (4) The more difficult reading is to be pre- 
ferred to the easier. This canon was first laid down 
by Bengel. It grows out of the tendency of copyists 
to alter what they did not understand into something 
which they did understand. A scribe might be puz- 
zled by a solecism, or by the irregular use of a word, 
or by a Hebraism, or by a want of connexion, and, in 
entire good faith, change the reading so as to make it, 



J. J. GB1ESBACB 



103 



as he thought, more intelligible. Thus may probably 
be explained, in Matt. 6 : 1, the change of hiKaioavv-qv, 
" righteousness/' into ikerjfioa-vvrjv, " alms " ; and of 
a/xapr^/xaTos, "sin," in Mark 3:29, into Kpto-ews, "judg- 
ment." (5) Along with this canon and included in 
it goes the canon that the reading which, at first 
sight, appears to convey a false sense, is to be pre- 
ferred to other readings. Thus, in 1 Cor. 11 : 29, 
dva&ws, "unworthily," is omitted by the best texts. 
Reading the text with this omission, the first impres- 
sion would be that the verse absolutely affirms that he 
that eats and drinks does not discern the Lord's body, 
and therefore incurs judgment. The difficulty vanishes 
when the proper conditional force is given to /xt), and 
we read, " He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and 
drinketh judgment to himself if he do not discern 
(or distinguish) the body." Probably the scribe, not 
appreciating the conditional force of fxrj, and being 
staggered by his false impression of the statement, 
imported am£ws into the passage from ver. 27. 

The line of distinction which Griesbach drew be- Abandoned 
tween Alexandrian and Western it was impossible to JionlJetween 
maintain. On this point he virtually abandoned his Alexandrian 
former conclusion. In his " Commentarius Criticus," em. 
1811, he showed that the readings of Origen do not 
accord precisely with the Alexandrian Recension to 
which he had assigned them. Indeed, the practical 
weight of his whole system of recensions was im- 
paired by his own declaration that in none of the ex- 
isting codices is a recension contained in its purity. 
In several, and those our oldest manuscripts, a differ- 
ence of recension is apparent in the individual parts. 
A, for example, follows one recension in the Gospels, 
another in the Pauline Epistles, and still another in 
the Acts and Catholic Epistles. The term " Western " 
was misapplied, since this type of text is not confined 



104 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Inconsis- 
tency in his 
deference to 
the Textus 
Receptus. 



to the West. 1 Moreover, the manuscripts on which the 
Textus Eeceptus is based belong to the Byzantine 
family, so that Griesbach's scanty respect for that 
family was not consistent with the deference paid in 
his edition to the Textus Eeceptus. He did not really 
take as his textual basis the ancient texts in which he 
professed the most confidence. He did not take the 
decisive step of entirely disregarding the Textus Ee- 
ceptus, and forming a text resting on the best authori- 
ties throughout. 2 

Griesbach's text is the basis of many manual edi- 
tions, as those of Schott, Marker, Knapp, Tittmann, 
Hahn, and Theile. Halm's was republished at New 
York, in 1842, by Dr. Edward Eobinson. 3 

1 See G. Salmon, Some Criticism of the Text of the New Tes- 
tament, 46 ff. 

2 The critical discussion of Griesbach' s classification may be 
studied in Hort's Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek 
Testament, 183, and in Scrivener's Introduction, II, 224 ff. 
Dr. Hort, while criticising Griesbach' s conclusions, expresses 
himself as venerating the name of Griesbach above that of every 
other textual critic of the New Testament. He says, " What 
Bengel had sketched tentatively, was verified and worked out 
with admirable patience, sagacity, and candor by Griesbach, 
who was equally great in independent investigation and in his 
power of estimating the results arrived at by others." Tre- 
gelles says that though his later critical edition is more complete, 
and in all respects more valuable, yet, if his system of recen- 
sions in its application is the subject of examination, the first 
edition is necessary {Printed Text, 84). 

3 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 188 ff., 246 ff. Scrivener, 
Introduction, II, 216, 222-226. Tregelles, Printed Text, 83-85, 
88-92. Hort, Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testa- 
ment, 181-186. Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti, 193-204, 
and article "Griesbach," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. 
Augusti, Uber GriesbacWs Verdienste, Breslau, 1812. R. Lau- 
rence, Remarks on the Systematical Classification of Manu- 
scripts adopted by Griesbach in his Edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment, Oxford, 1814. O. von Gebhardt, article "Bibeltext," in 
Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. 



CHAPTER XI 

THE SECOND PERIOD (1770-1830). THE SUCCESSORS 
OF GRIESBACH 

J. L. Hug (1765-1846), a Koinan Catholic Professor Hug pro- 
at Freiburg, in his Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen system of eW 
Testament, 1808, proposed, as a corrective of the views recensions, 
of Bengel and Griesbach, a new system of recensions. 
According to him, the text, in the general mass of 
codices, had degenerated, by the middle of the third 
century, into the form exhibited in Codex Bezse (D) 
of the Gospels, the Old Latin, Sahidic, and to some ex- 
tent the Peshitto Versions, and in the citations of 
Clement of Alexandria and of Origen in his earlier 
works. To this text he gave the name Kotvrj IkSoo-is, 
"common edition." He supposed that it received 
three separate revisions in the middle of the third 
century, — one by Origen, adopted by Jerome, and two 
others, by Hesychius in Egypt, and Lucian in Antioch, 
both which Jerome condemned, and Pope Gelasius 
(492-96) declared to be apocryphal. 1 His views were 
adopted, with some modifications, notably the rejection 
of the Origenian Revision, by J. G. Eichhorn, Ein- 
leitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig, 1827. The 
theory has been shown to be baseless, though it 
" brought out the fact of the early broad currency of 
the Western Text" (Warfield). 2 

1 See Teschendorf, Prolegomena, 194. 

2 It found, however, a feeble resurrectionist and defender a 
few years ago, in Dr. G. W. Samson, The English Bevisers^ 

105 



106 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Hug on 
Codex B. 



Scholz, as 
collector 



It should be added, however, that to Hug's De 
Antiquitate Vaticani Codicis Commentatio, 1810, is 
due the merit of first placing that document in its true 
rank. His conclusion as to its date is generally ac- 
cepted by modern critics. 1 

Scholz. — The backward movement of Matthaei was 
seconded by John Martin Augustine Scholz, Eoman 
Catholic Dean of Theology in the mixed University of 
Bonn, and a pupil of Hug. He was an extensive 
traveller, and collected in his journeys a vast amount 
anTcoHator °^ f resn material which appeared in his Curce Criticce 
in Historiam Textus Evangeliorum, Heidelberg, 1820 ; 
his Biblisch-kritiscJie Beise, Leipzig, 1823 ; and his 
Novum Testamentum Greece, 4to, Leipzig, 1830, 1836. 2 

The number of codices registered by him for the 
first time was 616, of which, however, he collated en- 
tire only thirteen. Scrivener says, "His inaccuracy 
in the description of manuscripts which he must have 
had before him when he was writing is most weari- 
some to those who have had to trace his steps, and to 
verify or rather falsify his statements." 3 

Scholz frequently departed from the Textus Recep- 

Greek Text shown to be unauthorised except by Egyptian Copies 
discarded by Greeks, and to be opposed to the Historic Text of 
All Ages and Churches, Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Schaff charac- 
terises the treatise as " a curious anachronism." 

1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 192. Tregelles, Printed 
Text, 90. Scrivener, Introduction, II, 270-272. Hort, In- 
troduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, 181-183. 

2 For details of Scholz's collections, see Tischendorf, Prole- 
gomena, 630-638, 659-665, 679-681, 702-714, 943-945. 

8 Dr. C. R. Gregory (Prolegomena to Tischendorf, 192) de- 
scribes him as "Itineribus prseclarior quam doctrina, codicum 
conlator neglegentissimus." Compare 257. Burgon speaks of 
him as "an incorrigible blunderer." But Dr. Gregory, in a 
recent lecture at Union Seminary, spoke in commendatory 
terms of Scholz, and asserted that he was a more careful col- 
lator than Scrivener. 



SCHOLZ 107 

tus, and yet, on the whole, preserved it in preference 
to that of the Vulgate. In many passages in which 
Griesbach had varied from the Textus Receptus, on 
the ground of the antiquity of the authorities, Scholz 
followed more recent documents on the evidence of 
number, thus adhering to readings of the Received Text. 

He at first divided documents into five families, — two Scholz's sys- 
African (Alexandrian and Western), one Asiatic, one families. 
Byzantine, and one Cyprian. Later he adopted Ben- 
gel's classification, and maintained that the true text 
was to be sought in the Constantinopolitan family, 
claiming that this family had always presented one 
uniform text, which had become traditional through- 
out the Greek Church. This text had been preserved 
without serious corruption before Constantinople be- 
came the seat of empire, had retained its general 
purity in the fourth century, and was retained and 
transmitted in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. 
He maintained the general unity in text of the Con- 
stantinopolitan manuscripts, as against the mutual 
discrepancies of the Alexandrian manuscripts and 
Versions. According to his classification, then, the 
Alexandrian family would embrace the most ancient 
manuscripts, the Old Latin, Jerome's Vulgate, the two 
Egyptian and the Ethiopic Versions. The Constan- 
tinopolitan would include the later manuscripts gener- 
ally, a part of the Old Syriac, the later Syriac, Gothic, 
Georgian, and Slavonic Versions, and certain Fathers 
from the fourth century onward. His system thus 
differed from Griesbach's by the inclusion of Gries- 
bach's Western family in the Alexandrian, and by 
assigning the preference to the Constantinopolitan, 
which, according to Griesbach, was a resultant of the 
Western and Alexandrian. 1 

1 Tregelles says, Printed Text, 152: " Scholz's first vol- 
ume was published in 1830. The second did not appear till 



108 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Scholz's 
error in as- 
suming a 
standard 
Constan- 
tinopolitan 
text. 



Character 
of Scholz's 
services. 



Careful examination would have shown Scholz the 
contrary of what he took for granted, namely, the ex- 
istence of a standard, public, authorised Constantino- 
politan text. Scrivener has shown that the more 
modern copies do not contain a uniform text, and 
that, "with certain points of general resemblance, 
whereby they are distinguished from the older docu- 
ments of the Alexandrian class, they abound with 
mutual variations so numerous and perpetual as to 
vouch for the independent origin of nearly all of 
them." l 

Scholz's services consisted mainly in pointing out 
the localities of manuscripts. The greater part of the 
documents which he was the first to consult were re- 
corded in his list, but their readings did not appear in 
his collection of variants. 

The gravitation of his text toward the Textus Re- 
ceptus made it popular with conservative critics who 



1836. Prior to that year I made a particular examination, in 
the Gospels, of those readings which he rejects in his inner 
margin as Alexandrian ; in the course of this examination, and 
with continued reference to the authorities which he cited, I 
observed what a remarkable body of witnesses stood in opposi- 
tion to the text which he had adopted as Constantinopolitan. 
Thus I learned that the most ancient manuscripts were witnesses 
against his text ; and not only so, but when I sought to ascertain 
the character of these manuscripts themselves, I found that 
they were continually supported by many of the older versions. 
While engaged in this examination, I went all through St. Mat- 
thew's Gospel, writing in the margin of a Greek Testament those 
well-supported readings which Scholz rejected. This was, of 
course, wholly for my own use ; but I saw that, as a general 
principle, the modern manuscripts can have no authority apart 
from ancient evidence, and that it is the ancient manuscripts 
alone (although comparatively few in number) which show 
within what limits we have to look as to the real ancient text." 
1 See also Hort, Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek 
Testament, 144. 



FABEWELL TO THE TEXTUS BECEPTUS 109 

hesitated at G-riesbach's conclusions, and it found 
many friends in England. Later (1845), Scholz re- 
tracted his preference for the Constantinopolitan text, 
and declared that if a new edition of his Greek Testa- 
ment should be called for, he would receive into the 
text most of the Alexandrian readings which he had 
placed in his margin. 1 

" Through these years (1770-1830)," says Dr. C. E. 
Gregory, " the controversy was between the adherents 
of the Eeceived Text and those who preferred to trust 
the ancient witnesses. Harwood alone rejected the 
Eeceptus, and he was rejected by his peers. Others, 
even Griesbach, showed the futility of holding the 
Textus Eeceptus as a foundation for the construction 
of a text. At this point we bid farewell to the Textus Farewell to 
Eeceptus without regret: a new day is dawning — the ^^^ us 
day which seeks the ancient text without hindrance 
from the tradition of later ages." 

1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 192, 193, 255-257. Scrive- 
ner, Introduction, II, 226-230. Tregelles, Printed Text, 92-97, 
179 ff. J. Scott Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, Bel- 
fast, 1848. F. H. A. Scrivener, A Full and Exact Collation of 
about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels (hitherto 
unexamined) deposited in the British Museum, the Archiepis- 
copal Library at Lambeth, etc., with a Critical Introduction, 
Cambridge, 1853. 



CHAPTER XII 

THIRD PERIOD (1830-81). EFFORTS FOR THE RES- 
TORATION OF THE PRIMITIVE TEXT. LACH- 
MANN 



Lachmann 
casts aside 
the Textus 
Receptus. 



Lachmann's 
first New 
Testament. 



A new period began in 1831, when, for the first 
time, a text was constructed directly from the ancient 
documents without the intervention of any printed 
edition, and when the first systematic attempt was 
made to substitute scientific method for arbitrary 
choice in the discrimination of various readings. To 
Carl Lachmann belongs the distinction of entirely 
casting aside the Textus Eeceptus, and placing the 
New Testament text wholly on the basis of actual 
authority. Lachmann boldly adopted Bentley's prin- 
ciple that the entire text is to be formed apart from 
the influence of printed editions, on evidence. Dr. 
Warfield remarks that if Bentley had completed his 
edition, he would have antedated the step of Lach- 
mann by a century. 

Carl Lachmann was Professor of Classical Philology 
in Berlin. He was not a professional theologian, but 
a philologist, who had distinguished himself by critical 
editions of Latin and German classics. 1 

In 1831 he published a small edition of the Greek 
Testament, with a brief notice of his plan, followed by 
a list of the places in which his readings differed from 

1 His edition of Lucretius still ranks among standards. A 
fourth edition of the text was issued in 1871, and of the Com- 
mentary in 1882. 

110 



LACHMANN 111 

those of the common text, and referring the reader for 
farther information to his article in the Studien und 
Kritiken, (1830, No. 4, 817-845). He declared that 
he had followed the usage of the most ancient Ori- 
ental churches ; that where this was not uniform he 
had preferred what was supported by the consensus 
of African and Italian authorities ; that where there 
was great uncertainty it was indicated partly by en- 
closing words within brackets, and partly by placing a 
different reading in the margin, the so-called Textus 
Beceptus being allowed no place. 

His larger edition, Novum Testamentum Grazce Larger 
et Latine, was published in two volumes at Berlin, 
1842-50. In this he was aided by the younger 
Philip Buttmann, who added the critical apparatus of 
the Greek text, and also published a small edition 
based on the Codex Vaticanus (1856, 1862, 1865). 

Lachmann recognised only two types of text : His types of 
Oriental (A, B, C, Origen) and Occidental (D, E, ex ' 
F, G, oldest Latin Versions, Vulgate, and Western 
Fathers from Irenaeus down to Primasius for the 
Apocalypse). He entirely disregarded Byzantine 
authorities and the Syriac and Egyptian Versions. 

The text of the larger edition did not vary greatly 
from that of the earlier. Only the text of the smaller 
edition was wholly based on the sources which he 
styled "Oriental," while in the larger, he used the 
combined evidence of Eastern and Western authorities. 

His object was purely historical, that is, to present 
the text in the form in which the most ancient docu- 
ments, so far as these were known, had transmitted 
it. His text was not put forth as the original or final His aim not 
text, but as the oldest attainable text, namely, that of £ut th?oid- 

the fourth century, as an historical basis for further est attain- 

• able text 

inquiries which might lead nearer to the primitive 

text. 



112 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Rules for 
estimating 
comparative 
weight of 
readings. 



Lachmann's 
use of the 
terms 

" Eastern" 
and " West- 
ern." 



He laid down six rules for estimating the compara- 
tive weight of readings : (1) Nothing is better attested 
than that in which all authorities agree. (2) The 
agreement has less weight if part of the authorities 
are silent or in any way defective. (3) The evidence 
for a reading, when it is that of witnesses of different 
regions, is greater than that of the witnesses of some 
particular place, differing either from negligence or 
from set purpose. (4) The testimonies are to be re- 
garded as doubtfully balanced when witnesses from 
widely separated regions stand opposed to others 
equally wide apart. (5) Readings are uncertain which 
occur habitually in different forms in different regions. 
(6) Readings are of weak authority which are not uni- 
formly attested in the same region. 

With Griesbach, Lachmann distinguished between 
Eastern and Western witnesses ; but the peculiar sense 
in which he used those terms caused his meaning 
to be misapprehended. Others had used the term 
"Oriental" or "Asiatic" to denote the mass of the 
more recent manuscripts gathered from the churches 
of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, containing 
the text which had, perhaps, originally come into use 
in the regions from Antioch to Constantinople, and 
classed by Griesbach as "Byzantine." Lachmann 
meant by " Eastern " the few ancient codices com- 
prised in Griesbach's Alexandrian class. His wit- 
nesses were, for the Gospels A, B, C, the fragments 
P, Q, T, Z, sometimes D. For the Acts, D, E 2 . For 
Paul, D 2 , G 2 , H 3 . With these the citations of Origen, 
the Greek remains of Irenaeus, the Old Latin manu- 
scripts a, b, c, and the citations from Cyprian, Hilary 
of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Primasius. 1 

1 The following will explain the notations of those of Lach- 
mann' s authorities which may be less familiar : — 

P, Codex Guelpherbytanus, sixth century, Wolfenbtittel, 518 



LACHMANJST 113 

Through almost a quarter of the New Testament 
Lachmann had scarcely any means of deciding how 
far the Eastern witnesses varied in readings. There 
are passages in which at most two manuscripts, or 
perhaps only one, contain the text. Thus an error in 
such a copy or copies is assumed to be a widely spread 
reading of the fourth century. It is to be remembered, 
further, that at that time neither B nor C had been 
thoroughly examined. Where his Eastern witnesses 
disagreed, he had recourse to Western sources ; and, 
these failing, to sources of inferior age and authority. 

It is thus evident that his method was too rigid, His method 
and the range of his authorities too limited ; and it is t0 ° ngid * 
not strange that his text was regarded as an innova- 
tion, and treated accordingly. If his exposition of 
his plan and object had been fuller and simpler, his 
work might have met with a better reception. As it 
is, " Let any objections be raised to the plan, let incon- 
sistencies be pointed out in the execution, let correc- 
tions of varied kinds be suggested, still the fact will 
remain that the first Greek Testament, since the 
invention of printing, edited wholly on ancient author- 
ity, irrespective of modern traditions, is due to Charles 
Lachmann " (Tregelles). 

He bestowed great pains in editing the Latin Ver- Great pains 
sion of Jerome, which was added to his Greek text, drome's ° n 
His principal authorities were the Codex Fuldensis Latin 
(sixth century), which he and Buttmann studied ersion - 

vv. of the Gospels. Q, Codex Guelpherbytanus II, fifth century, 
palimpsest, Wolfenbtittel, 247 vv. of Luke and John. T, Codex 
Borgianus I, fifth century, College of the Propaganda at Rome, 
fragments of Luke and John, Greek text with Sahidic or The- 
baic Version. Z, Codex Dublinensis, sixth century, palimp- 
sest, Matthew. E 2 , Codex Laudianus, sixth century, Bodleian 
Library, Oxford, Acts. G 2 , Acts, seventh century, St. Peters- 
burg. H3, Codex Coislinianus, sixth century, fragments dis- 
tributed in different libraries, Pauline Epistles. 
1 



114 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



together at Fulda in 1839, and the Codex Amiatinus 
(sixth century) of the Lauxentian Library at Florence, 
a description of which may be found in Scrivener's 
Introduction, II, 71. Of this codex he had only an 
imperfect collation. With these and some other aid 
from manuscripts he revised the whole of Jerome's 
Version. In his preface he gave some valuable matter 
on the subject of the Latin texts. He held that the 
Old Latin proceeded from Northern Africa, and that 
its text had been modernised into a form resembling 
the later Greek manuscripts. 1 

1 The following table exhibits a few of Lachmann's readings, 
compared with those of the Textus Eeceptus and Westcott and 
Hort : — 





Eec. 


Lach? 


W. H. 


Matt. 21 : 31 : 


6 TTpwTOS 


6 V(TT€pOS 


6 i/trrepo? 


Luke 2 : 14 : 


evSoicia 


evSo/aas 


evSoK.Ca.'s 


Luke 7 : 31 : 


elrre Se 6 Kvpio? 


Omit 


Omit 


John 3 : 15 : 


(JLr) an6\r)Ta.L dAA* 


[pr? air6\y\rai dAA'] 


Omit 


John 3 : 34 : 


e/c perpov di8<a<riv 6 


e/c peVpov SiSuxrcv [6 


e/c peVpoi; 5t5co- 




6ebs 


0ebs] 


<TIV 


John 6 : 22 : 


eKelvo eiq o kv£fZr)<rav 
ot fxaQy]Tai clvtov 


Omit 


Omit 


John 6 : 51 : 


r\v eya> Suxroi 


Omit 


Omit 


Acts 13 : 33 : 


TO) Sevrepw 


T(5 irpdi)T<p 


rco SevTepw 


Eom. 1 : 29 : 


iropvelq 


Omit 


Omit 


Eom. 5:1: 


exo/Aev 


exwpev (mg) 


e^copev 


Eom. 5:2: 


Tfl nC<TT€L 


[ J 


[ ] 


Eom. 7 : 25 : 


ei>x a P tcrT <tf 


X<xpts 


Xdpt? 


1 Cor. 11 : 29 : 


ava^ltas 


Omit 


Omit 


Eph. 1:15: 


Tr\v ayaTrrjv 


Omit 


Omit 


Eph. 2 : 21 : 


iracra 17 oi/coSoprj 


Omit 17 


Omit r) 


Heb. 10 : 34 : 


Secrpot? 


cWpt'ois 


Secrpicu? 


Apoc. 18 : 3 : 


7re7rcoKe 


nenoiKav 


ni-rrriiiKav 



See Hort, Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testa- 
ment, 13. 'Lachmann's Life, by Hertz, Berlin, 1851. Teschen- 
dorf, Prolegomena, 193, 258-366. Tregelles, Printed Text, 
97-117. Scrivener, Introduction, II, 231-235. O. von Geb- 
hardt, article " Bibeltext," in Ilerzog's Beal-Encyklopadie. 



HAHN, THEILE, BLOOMFIELD, HORNE 115 

The editions of Halm (1840, 1861) and Theile (1844), Bairn, 
based on the Textus Beceptus, but giving many read- Btoomfield. 
ings from Griesbach, and some from Lachmann and 
Tischendorf, did nothing to promote Textual Criti- 
cism beyond giving wider currency to the new read- 
ings. The successive editions of Dr. Samuel Thomas 
Bloomfield, published in England and America (1832- 
43), merely testify to the lack of the critical aft at 
that time and in those countries. 1 Equally without 
critical value as regarded text was the Introduction to Home's 
the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, ^^^ oduc " 
by Thomas Hartwell Home, which passed through nine 

Tregelles's appreciation of Lachmann is very high, and his re- 
marks concerning him are very interesting. Scrivener cannot 
accord to him the praise of wisdom in his design, or of over- 
much industry and care in the execution of it ; but styles him 
a true scholar, both in spirit and accomplishments, and ascribes 
to him the merit of restoring the Latin Versions to their proper 
rank in the criticism of the New Testament. Tischendorf, in 
his seventh edition, commented severely upon Lachmann' s treat- 
ment of many passages, claiming that he had not followed his 
own principles. Dr. Gregory, in the Prolegomena to Tischen- 
dorf s eighth edition, speaks of him generously and discrimi- 
natingly. 

1 Dr. Gregory, Prolegomena to Tischendorf, 267, gives a list 
of manuscripts consulted by Bloomfield at Lambeth and in the 
British Museum, and Scrivener notices him only in an index of 
writers, owners, and collators. Tregelles {Printed Text, 262, 
note) says: "Those who maintain the traditional text often 
invent or dream their facts, and then draw their inferences. 
I refer the reader to Dr. Bloomfield's Additional Annotations on 
the New Testament, who, as well as other writers devoted to 
the advocacy of similar principles, habitually overlooks the real 
facts in the statement of evidence ; and thus he accuses critics 
of having made false allegations which really are not so, of in- 
serting or cancelling readings which they have not inserted or 
cancelled, and of being actuated by evil motives, such as no 
one ought to think of imputing without sure knowledge and 
definite proof." 



116 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Doedes, 
Reiche, de 
Muralt. 



Porter, 
Norton. 



editions in England, from 1818 to 1846, and was printed 
three times in America, and commanded a wide influ- 
ence. 

In Holland, Jacob Isaac Doedes, in 1844, published 
a Treatise on the Textual Criticism of the New Tes- 
tament, in which he expressed the wish that the 
Textus Eeceptus might be set aside, and the text 
printed of an ancient manuscript, as A, with various 
readings from the oldest Greek codices. From George 
Eeiche, Professor at Gottingen, came, in 1874, A 
New Description of some notable New Testament 
manuscripts in the Paris Library, and a collation with 
the Eeceived Text. 1 The New Testament of Edward 
de Muralt, " ad fidem codicis principis Vaticani," Ham- 
burg, 1848, was valuable principally for its collations 
of a few St. Petersburg codices. In England, John 
Scott Porter, a pupil of Griesbach and Hug, in his 
Principles of Textual Criticism, etc., 1848, and Samuel 
Davidson, in his Treatise on Biblical Criticism, 1852, 
gave some signs of a progress of the science. Good 
critical work in the history and text of the Gospels 
was done by Andrews Norton, Professor of Sacred Lit- 
erature at Harvard Divinity School, in his Evidences 
of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., 1846. 

1 Dr. Gregory characterises his work as "not unfruitful" 
with respect to certain minuscules, but says that he represents 
a backward tendency in criticism. Scrivener approvingly quotes 
Canon Cook's voucher for him as "a critic remarkable for ex- 
tent and accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobriety 
of judgment." 



CHAPTER XIII 



THE THIRD PERIOD (1830-81). TISCHENDORF 

An important era in the history of Textual Criti- 
cism was marked by the labours of iEnotheus (Gottlob) 
Friedrich Constantine Tischendorf (1815-74). He 
was appointed Professor of Theology at Leipzig in 
1843. In 1840 he began a series of journeys for the 
purpose of collecting and examining authorities for the 
oSTew Testament text. From Paris, where he prepared 
for publication the text of Codex Ephraemi, he went to 
England, Holland, and Italy, examining and collating 
manuscripts in every great library. He was aided in 
his journeys by the pecuniary support of the Saxon 
and Eussian governments. He aimed to become ac- 
quainted with all the uncial manuscripts by personal 
examination. His first journey to the East was made 
in 1844, when he discovered at the Mount Sinai Con- 
vent of St. Catherine forty-three leaves of Codex & of 
the LXX, which had been thrown by the monks into a 
waste-basket to be used as fuel. These were published 
in 1846, as the Codex Friderico Augustanus. His 
third eastern excursion, in 1859, resulted in his dis- 
covery of the remainder of the Sinaitic Codex, includ- 
ing the entire ISTew Testament. Having secured the 
loan of the codex, it was carried to Cairo, where, with 
the aid of two German scribes, he transcribed the 
whole manuscript of 110,000 lines, and noted the 
12,000 changes made by later hands. In September, 
1849, he was allowed to take it to Europe for publica- 

117 



Tischendorf. 
His series of 
journeys. 



Discovery of 
Codex N of 
LXX. 



Discovery of 
n of the New 
Testament. 



118 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

tion, and in 1862 it was issued in sumptuous style, in 
four volumes, at the expense of Alexander II, Czar of 
Kussia. An edition containing only the New Testa- 
ment appeared in the following year. 1 This discovery 
Value of n. W as a most important contribution to the study of the 
New Testament text. The date assigned by Tischen- 
dorf to the codex, the middle of the fourth century, is 
generally accepted. He thought it probable that it 
was one of the fifty copies which Constantine ordered 
to be prepared for the churches of Constantinople in 
331, and that it was sent by the Emperor Justinian to 
the Sinaitic Convent which had been founded by him. 
Tischendorf declared that a thousand readings of the 
codex, among them exceedingly remarkable and im- 
portant ones, sustained by the oldest Fathers and Ver- 
sions, are found in neither B nor A. The readings, in 
many passages, agree with those of B, and Tischen- 
dorf held that the hand of the same scribe was appar- 
ent in portions of both, though conceding that the 
origin of the two was not the same. It contains twelve 
thousand corrections, made by the original scribes or 

1 The story of the discovery of the Sinaitic Codex is told by 
Tischendorf in Beise in den Orient, 1845-46, and most fully 
in Die Sinaibibel, 1871. See also Wann wurden unsere Evan- 
gelien verfasst ? " When were our Gospels written ? " Trans- 
lation by the London Religious Tract Society, 1867. Also 
Georg Ebers, Durch Gosen zum Sinai, 302-309, Leipzig, 1872. 
The charge that the manuscript was stolen under pretext of 
borrowing is false. It was formally presented to the Czar in 
1869 by the authorities of the Mt. Sinai Convent. Dr. Philip 
Schaff says that Tischendorf, in 1871, showed him two letters 
from Kallistratos the Prior, in one of which he distinctly says 
that the codex was a gift (iduprjdrj) to the Russian emperor, 
"asa testimony of eternal devotion. " The Czar recognized the 
gift by a liberal donation. See Schaff, Companion to the Greek 
Testament and English Version, 3d ed., Ill, and all the docu- 
mentary evidence in Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf, 
350 f. 



TISCHENDOBF 119 

by later writers running from the fourth to the seventh 
century. It frequently agrees with the Old Latin. 

The adherents of the Textus Eeceptus have en- Attempts to 
deavoured to belittle the importance and authority of importance 
this codex as well as that of B. Notable among these and author- 
assailants was the late J. W. Burgon, Dean of Chi- gon's attack. 
Chester, an accomplished scholar but a bitter contro- 
versialist. His views may be examined in TJie Last 
Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark 
Vindicated, etc., London, 1871, and in The Revision 
Revised, London, 1883. His style of handling the two 
manuscripts may be seen from the following extracts, 
taken from the latter work : " By far the most de- 
praved text is that exhibited by Codex D. . . . Next 
to D, the most untrustworthy codex is &, which bears 
on its front a memorable note of the evil repute under 
which it has always laboured, viz. it is found that at 
least ten revisers between the fourth and the twelfth 
centuries busied themselves with the task of correct- 
ing its many and extraordinary perversions of the 
truth of Scripture. Next in impurity comes B." Ee- 
f erring to Bishop Ellicott's description of &, B, A, and 
C, the Dean says : " Could ingenuity have devised se- 
verer satire than such a description of four profess- 
ing transcripts of a book, and that book the everlasting 
Gospel itself ? . . . Imagine it gravely proposed, by 
the aid of four such conflicting documents, to readjust 
the text of the funeral oration of Pericles, or to reedit 
Hamlet. Risum teneatis amici f Why, some of the 
poet's most familiar lines would cease to be recognisa- 
ble, e.g. A, — ' Toby or not Toby, that is the question ' : 
B, — 6 Toby or not, is the question ? : K, — ' To be a tub 
or not to be a tub, the question is that 9 : C, — i The 
question is, to beat or not to beat Toby ? ' D (the ' sin- 
gular codex'), — 'The only question is this, to beat 
that Toby or to be a tub ? ' " 



120 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

" As for the origin of these two curiosities (X and B) > 
it can perforce only be divined from their contents. 
That they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstrable. 
No amount of honest copying — persevered in for any 
number of centuries — could by any possibility have 
resulted in two such documents. Separated from one 
another in actual date by fifty, perhaps by one hun- 
dred years, they must needs have branched off from 
a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become 
exposed continuously to fresh depraving influences. 
The result is that Codex 8, which evidently has gone 
through more adventures and fallen into worse com- 
pany than his rival, has been corrupted to a far graver 
extent than Codex B, and is even more untrustworthy." 
" Lastly, we suspect that these two manuscripts are in- 
debted for their preservation solely to their ascertained 
evil character, which has occasioned that the one 
eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a for- 
gotten shelf in the Vatican Library ; while the other, 
after exercising the ingenuity of several generations 
of critical correctors, eventually got deposited in the 
waste-paper basket of the convent at the foot of Mt. 
Sinai. Had B and & been copies of average purity, 
they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of 
books which are freely used and highly prized, namely, 
they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared 
from sight. But in the meantime, behold, their very 
antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage, 
and (strange to relate) is even considered to constitute 
a sufficient reason why they should enjoy not merely 
extraordinary consideration, but the actual surrender of 
the critical judgment." 
Replies to Burgon was answered by Dr. Ezra Abbot of Cam- 

urgon. bridge, Mass., in the Journal of the American Oriental 
Society, 1872, X, 189-200, 602. Dr. Sand ay, in the Con- 
temporary Review for December, 1881, declared that the 



TISCHENDOBF 



121 



one thing which Burgon lacked was a grasp on the cen- 
tral condition of the problem, and that he did not seem 
to have the faintest glimmering of the principle of gene- 
alogy. He was also dealt with by 0. von Gebhardt, in 
the article " Bibeltext " in Herzog's Real-Encyklojxidie. 

In the same line with Burgon, but more moderate in 
tone, was Canon E. C. Cook, TJie Revised Version of 
the First Three Gospels, London, 1882. 1 

Teschendorf's labours as editor, writer, and collator 
were enormous. The catalogue of his published writ- 
ings occupies fourteen pages of Gregory's Prolegomena. 
One of his principal claims to the gratitude of textual 
students is the number of texts of the leading uncials 
which he edited. 2 Between 1841 and 1873 he pub- Tischen- 
lished twenty-four editions of the Greek Testament, tio^of^e 
if we include the reissues of his stereotyped Editio NewTesta- 
Academica (1855). Of these, four were intended men ' 
rather for common or academic use than for critical 
purposes. The first edition of 1841 contained Pro- 
legomena concerning Kecensions, with special refer- 
ence to the positions of Scholz, which he repudiated. 
In this edition he followed, essentially, the principles 
which he afterward maintained. In 1842 an edition 
was issued at Paris in large 8vo, with a Latin version 
according to ancient witnesses, and in the same year 
an edition in 12mo, without the version and the criti- 

1 The most elaborate discussion of the Sinaitic and Vatican 
manuscripts is in Dr. Hort's Introduction to Westcott and Hort's 
Greek Testament, 210-270. See also F. H. A. Scrivener, Colla- 
tion of the Codex Sinaiticus, 3d ed., 1867. Tischendorf, Die 
Anfechtungen der Sinaibibel, 1863. Id., Waff en der Finster- 
niss wider die Sinaibibel, 1863. Id., Die Sinaibibel, ihre Ent- 
deckung, Herausgabe and Erwerbung, 1871. J. Rendel Harris, 
New Testament Autographs, Baltimore. V. Gardthausen, Grie- 
chische Palaeographie, 1879. 

2 See the list in Gregory's Prolegomena, 7 ff., and compare 
Scrivener's Introduction, II, 236 if. 



122 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

cal apparatus of the larger edition. Three editions 
appeared in 1843, neither of which is specially sig- 
nificant. His fifth or second Leipzig edition, 1849, 
contained a revised text, with a selection of various 
readings embodying the results of his own collations 
since his first edition. " This edition may be called 
epoch-making" (Bertheau). In this interval he had 
copied or collated almost every known uncial. The 
work also contained a statement of his critical princi- 
ples. The seventh edition (E ditto Septima Gritica 
Major, 1859) was issued in thirteen parts at Leipzig. 
Scrivener characterises this as "a monument of per- 
severing industry which the world has not often seen 
surpassed." The Prolegomena, partly from the edi- 
tion of 1849, were greatly enlarged. In the first 
volume of this edition he showed a leaning toward 
the Textus Eeceptus as represented by the cursives 
and later uncials; but in the second volume he re- 
turned to the older uncial text. His crowning work, 
The eighth the eighth edition (Editio Octava Critica Major), ap- 
editfon peared in eleven parts, between 1864 and 1872. It 

differed from that of 1859 in over three thousand 
places, mostly in favour of the oldest uncial text. 1 

1 Dr. Scrivener uses this fact to the disparagement of Tischen- 
dorf, remarking that it was u to the scandal of the science of 
comparative criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for 
discernment and consistency." On the other hand, 0. von Geb- 
hardt, article "Bibeltext," Herzog's Beal-Encyklopadie, regards 
the fact as creditable to Tischendorf , showing his willingness to 
learn from new sources of information. He says that the ex- 
planation lies not only in the enrichment of his textual apparatus 
through the discovery of the Sinai tic Codex, but before all, as 
Tischendorf himself declared, in the emphasis on the objective 
authority of the oldest witnesses, irrespective of consequences 
to subjective considerations, — those founded, for instance, -on 
possibilities of erroneous transcription, or the apparent critical 
or dogmatic leanings of copyists. 



TISCHENDORF 



123 



Teschendorf s death in December, 1874, prevented 
the preparation of the Prolegomena to the eighth edi- 
tion. This was done by Dr. Caspar Eene Gregory, 
assisted by Dr. Ezra Abbot, and was issued at Leipzig 
in 1894. Dr. Abbot died before the work was com- 
pleted. " Cselestibns adjunctus animis," writes Dr. 
Gregory in his preface, " laude mea non eget." 

Tischendorf started from Lachmann's principle, 
that the text is to be sought in ancient evidence, and 
especially in Greek manuscripts, but without neglect- 
ing the testimonies of Versions and Fathers. " I have 
learned," he said, " that the great profusion of various 
readings which is commonly paraded in books is a 
kind of splendid distress." Under the term, "most 
ancient Greek Codices," he included documents from 
the fourth to about the ninth century, classified ac- 
cording to their age, the older being the more authori- 
tative. Their authority is strongly confirmed by the 
corroborating Versions and Fathers, and is not to be 
rejected, even though most or all of the modern copies 
read differently. His range was, accordingly, much 
larger than Lachmann's, and the application of his 
principle less rigid. While Lachmann aimed at at- 
taining only the oldest text, Tischendorf sought for 
the best text. 

He treated the subject of recensions cautiously. 
He held that revisions were made by Hesychius and 
Lucian, but that the extent of the influence of these 
revisions could not be shown. The so-called revision 
of Origen existed, he declared, only in Hug's imagina- 
tion. The documentary witnesses which have de- 
scended to us may be thrown into certain classes, 
especially in the Gospels, less in the Apocalypse than 
in the other books, more in the Pauline Epistles and 
Acts than in the Catholic Epistles. He recognised a 
fourfold division in two pairs: Alexandrian and Latin, 



The Prole- 
gomena by- 
Gregory and 
Abbot. 



Tischen- 
dorf 's criti- 
cal princi- 
ples and 
methods. 



Classifica- 
tion of 
witnesses. 



124 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

Asiatic and Byzantine. The Alexandrian was in use 
among Eastern Jewish Christians, whose Greek, like 
that of the Apostles, was moulded by that of the 
Septuagint. The Latin was employed by Latins, 
whether Latin or Greek-speaking. The Asiatic pre- 
vailed among Greeks, whether in Asia or in their own 
country. The Byzantine was that which was diffused 
by the church throughout the Byzantine Empire, and 
which gradually, with the closer union of individual 
churches, acquired a kind of public unity. The Asi- 
atic and Byzantine embraced the more recent docu- 
ments ; the Alexandrian and Latin the more ancient. 

The question of the origin of these classes is not 
settled by the difference of the several countries 
through which the text was propagated, since the 
codices of one country were sometimes conveyed to 
another; as when Eusebius of Caesarea and Athana- 
sius of Alexandria were commanded by Constantine 
and Constans to send to the Byzantines copies accu- 
rately and elegantly transcribed. Along with the 
difference of countries there must be taken into the 
account the efforts made at a very early date to amend 
the text. Such efforts, Tischendorf thought, grew out 
of the want of reverence for " the written letter " on 
the part of the early Christians. It is to be especially 
observed that the Byzantine family is conspicuous in 
the great body of more recent Greek codices, and the 
Latin in the Latin and Graeco-Latin documents, though 
with a great variety of readings. Of the Asiatic and 
Alexandrian the fewest documents survive, and none 
Caution de- are uncorrupted. Great caution should therefore be 
app^v^nffthe exerc i se( ^ i* 1 a PPtyi n g t ne distinction of classes or re- 
distinction censions. To take this distinction as an absolute norm 
or foundation, is rash and futile. In assigning the 
first place to the Alexandrian witnesses we reason less 
from the theory of recensions than from the fact that 



of classes. 



TISCHENDORF 125 

those codices which go under that name are almost the 
oldest of all surviving witnesses. 

Thus, according to Tischendorf, the value of any 
codex is derived, not from its class, but from the good- 
ness and antiquity of the text which the codex princi- 
pally follows. 1 

Tischendorf laid down the following principles for Formal 
the formation of his text, some of which had been, ^chen** * 
substantially, propounded by Griesbach and others : — dorf s prin- 

1. The text is only to be sought from ancient th^forma- 
evidence, and especially from Greek manuscripts, but tion of his 
without neglecting the testimonies of Versions and 
Fathers. Thus the whole conformation of the text 

1 The uncial codices, arranged according to their value, are 
the following : — 

{A) Text of the most ancient form, for the most part with 
an Alexandrian colouring, but with many variations. 

(J5) Text later in form, mostly with an Asiatic colouring. 

Gospels 

(A) Of the first rank : K A B C D I l b L P Q R T abc X Z A (espe- 
cially in Mark) c g£. 

Of the second rank : F a N W abc [W de ] Y abef [2], 
(jB) Of the first rank, nearer to A : E K M V A II 9\ 

Of the second rank : F G H S U V. 

When, as often occurs, EFGHKMSUV agree, they are desig- 
nated by Tischendorf as unc 9 . 

Acts and Catholic Epistles 

(A) K A B C D I E G and P in Catholic Epistles, except in 1 
Pet. 

(J5) H K L [M], and P in Acts and 1 Pet. 

Pauline Epistles 

{a) kabchioq[r]dfgm[ot>]p. 
[b) kln. 

Apocalypse 
(A) KACPB. 



126 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Use of 
ancient evi- 
dence. 



Peculiar 
readings 
suspicious. 



should proceed from evidences themselves, and not 
from what is called the received edition. The sound- 
ness of this rule, which embodies Lachmamr's funda- 
mental principle, is generally conceded. Its practical 
working, however, strictly on Teschendorf's basis, 
would be somewhat embarrassed by the wide range 
which he gives to the term "Most Ancient Greek 
Manuscripts " ; since, under that term, he includes the 
documents from the fourth to about the ninth century. 
Later documents of that period would be likely to 
exhibit readings resembling those of modern copies. 
Tischendorf, however, declares that, of the documents 
from the fourth to the ninth century, the authority of 
the older ones is much the greater, and is confirmed by 
corroborating testimonies of Versions and Fathers, and 
not to be rejected, even though most or all of the 
more modern copies read differently. 

2. A reading altogether peculiar to one or another an- 
cient document is suspicious, as also is any, even if sup- 
ported by a class of documents which seems to show 
that it has originated in the revision of a learned man. 
He says that especially in the Gospels, where we have 
several uncial manuscripts, it would be incautious to 
receive a reading into the text on the authority of one 
manuscript, unless the reading were in some measure 
corroborated. On this Tregelles justly remarks that 
"it seems unlikely that, in the Gospels, it would be 
needful to rely on but one manuscript, unless, in such 
a place, many of the leading authorities are defec- 
tive, or unless the passage present a remarkable dis- 
crepancy of reading. Tischendorf would apparently 
introduce this latter limitation." An example is 
furnished in Mark 2 : 22, where Tischendorf reads 
6 oTi/o? airoXkvTai kcu ol olctkol, " the wine perisheth and 
the skins," for the received reading, 6 ofi/o? itcxurai kclI 
ol ao-Kol cbroAowrai, " the wine is spilled and the skins 



TISCHENDORF 127 

perish." The former reading rests on the authority 
of B; but Tischendorf would refuse to adopt it on 
that authority alone. It is also the reading of the 
Memphitic Version, and added to these witnesses is 
the probability that it was altered in order to conform 
it to the reading of Matt. 9 : 17. That, originally, 
the passage in Mark was written differently from that 
in Matthew, in accordance with the difference between 
Matthew's fuller and Mark's briefer diction, would 
seem to be shown by the differences in reading of the 
passage in Mark. L reads 6 ohos c^en-ai koI 61 Slo-koI : 
D with It. b , 6 ohos kolL ao-Kol a7ro\ovvTaL. Thus, Tischen- 
dorf refuses to accept his reading on the authority of 
B alone, but accepts it because B is confirmed by a 
Version, and by the evidence of transcriptional proba- 
bility. 

3. Headings, however well supported by evidence, Copyists' 

are to be reiected when it appears that they have errors to be 

« , ff J . rejected de- 

proceeded from errors of copyists. Here, however, it spite sup- 
is to be carefully considered whether an apparent port * 
transcriptional error is not set aside by the weight of 
diplomatic evidence. Thus, Tischendorf holds that 
the reading in Matt. 25 : 16 should be kiroi^vev 
"made," instead of iKtpSrjo-ev "gained"; but both 
Tregelles and Westcott and Hort retain iKipSrja-ev on 
the ground that it is sustained by the best and most 
ancient manuscripts ; and Tischendorf himself admits 
that it is often doubtful whether an apparent tran- 
scriptional error is really such. 

4. In parallel passages, whether of the New or Old In parallel 
Testament, especially in the synoptical Gospels, those Snifarmon- 
testimonies are to be preferred in which there is not j sed read - 
precise accordance of such parallel passages, unless able, 
there are important reasons to the contrary. The 
tendency of copyists to bring the parallel passages of 
different Gospels into accord has already been noticed. 



128 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



More funda- 
mental 
reading to 
be chosen. 



The more 
characteris- 
tic readings 
to be chosen. 



General es- 
timate of 
Teschendorf. 



It was no doubt fostered by the use of Harmonies, 
such as Tatian's. 

5. In discrepant readings, that reading should be 
preferred which may have given occasion to the rest, 
or which appears to comprise the elements of the 
others. The principle is sound, but its application is 
not easy in all cases, and is likely to depend upon the 
feeling of the individual critic. The same considera- 
tion will come into play as in Rule 3, viz. whether 
the apparent probability is not offset or overborne by 
external testimony. 

6. Those readings must be maintained which accord 
with New Testament Greek, or with the peculiar style 
of each individual writer. This may be admitted so 
far as concerns the peculiar style of each writer ; but 
the rule was evidently framed on the assumption 
that Biblical Greek was an independent language, 
an assumption which is strongly challenged by some 
modern New Testament scholars. Until that discus- 
sion is settled, it is premature to pronounce upon the 
validity of Tischendorfs rule. 1 

The question of the original New Testament text, 
and that of the methods by which it is to be finally 
determined, are both too far from absolute settlement 
to warrant a final judgment as to the relative value of 
Tischendorf's results. He himself incurred the charge 
of vacillation because he was open-eyed to all new 
forms of evidence, and ready to modify or to abandon 
former conclusions under the influence of new light. 

1 See H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of New Testament Greek, 
Edinburgh, 1895. G. A. Deissmann, Die sprachliche Erforschung 
der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwartiger Stand und ihre Aufga- 
ben, Giessen, 1898. Id., Beitrage zur Sprachgeschichte der 
griechischen Bibel, in Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1895. Id., 
Neue Bibelstudien. Sprachgeschichtliche Beitrage, zumeist aus 
den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Erklarung des Neuen Testa- 
me/ite, Marburg, 1897. 



TISCHENBOBF 129 

The real value of Codex K and his enthusiastic delight 
in its discovery may have led him sometimes to attach 
undue weight to its testimony. In any case, he gave 
a vast and permanent impulse to the science of textual 
criticism, and advanced it far beyond the lines which 
it had previously reached. He did not solve the 
problem presented by variations between the most 
ancient texts, but his accumulations of new manu- 
script evidence, from personal inspection, were enor- 
mous. His collations were generally accurate, and his 
publications of the texts of the chief ancient witnesses 
were invaluable. He was a formidable champion of 
the principle that the original text is to be determined 
primarily on the basis of ancient testimony. Until 
some new and greater textual prophet shall arise, he 
will continue to divide the honors with Tregelles and 
Westcott and Hort, neither of whom have rendered his 
published results unnecessary ; and over a large area 
of the New Testament text the conclusions of these 
leaders coincide. 1 

1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 3-6, 7-22, 193-197. Scrive- 
ner, Introduction, I, 115-117, 122, 155 f., 159, 163; II, 235- 
238, 282 ; also I, Index II. P. Schaff, Companion to the Greek 
Testament and English Version, 3d ed., 103-111, 257-262. 
Tregelles, Printed Text, 116-129. O. von Gebhardt, article 
"Bibeltext," in Herzog's Beal-Encyklopddie. J. E. Volbed- 
ing, Constantine Tischendorf in seiner fiinfundzwanzigjahri- 
gen schriftstellerischen Wirksamkeit, Leipzig, 1862. Ezra 
Abbot, Unitarian Beview, March, 1875. Carl Bertheau, article 
"Tischendorf," in Herzog's Beal-Encyklopddie. 

K 



CHAPTEB XIV 

THIRD PERIOD (1830-81). TREGELLES 

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, who ranks as one 
of the three great modern authorities on the New 
Testament text, was born and died at nearly the same 
Tregelles's times as Teschendorf. His Prospectus of a Critical 
Edition of the Greek New Testament, now in prepara- 
tion, was appended to his Book of Revelation Trans- 
lated from the Ancient Greek Text, 1844. In 1845 
he went to Rome, with the special object of collating 
the Codex Vaticanus. This document had been already 
collated for Bentley by Mico (1799), partially by Birch, 
and also by Bartolocci (1669). Bartolocci's collation 
was not published. Tregelles had compared the two 
others, and had found that they differed in nearly two 
thousand places, and that many of the discrepancies 
were readings noticed by one and not by the other. 
He went to Eome, and during the five months of his 
Fruitless at- s tay endeavoured to obtain permission to collate the 
collate B. manuscript accurately, or at least to examine it in 
the places where Birch and Bentley differed as to the 
readings ; but all his efforts were in vain. He often 
saw the manuscript, but was hindered from transcribing 
any of its readings. He, however, read many passages, 
and afterward noted down several important readings. 
During that visit, however, and two subsequent ones 
to the Continent, he examined all the manuscripts that 
he could find in different libraries, at Florence, Modena, 
Venice, Munich, Basle, Paris (where he transcribed 
Bartolocci's collation of B), Hamburg, Berlin, Leipzig, 

130 



TREGELLES 131 

and Dresden. In 1854 appeared his Account of the Account of 

Printed Text of the New Testament, intended as an j^f rznted 

exposition of his critical principles ; and in 1856 his Introduc- 

Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testa- Textual CH- 

ment, contributed to the tenth edition of Home's ticismof 

the xveio 
Introduction. In 1857 the first part of his Greek Testament. 

Testament, containing the Gospels of Matthew and His Greek 
Mark, was published, under the title, The Greek Testament. 
Testament edited from Ancient Authorities, with the 
Latin Version of Jerome from the Codex Amiatinus. 
The second part, containing the Gospels of Luke and 
John, followed in 1861, the Acts and Catholic Epistles 
appeared in 1865, and the Pauline Epistles, down to 
2 Thessalonians, in 1869. He was disabled by a para- 
lytic stroke in 1870 ; but the remaining Epistles were 
published in that year as he had prepared them. The 
Apocalypse, edited so far as possible, from his papers, 
by two of his friends, was issued in 1872, with a text 
differing in over two hundred places from his edition 
of 1844. 

His New Testament contained a large array of 
Greek and Syriac readings, mostly the results of his 
own collations; besides readings of the Egyptian, 
Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions, of the Greek 
Fathers down to Eusebius, and of the Latin Fathers, 
Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Lucifer of Cagliari, and 
Primasius. The Gospels were edited before the dis- 
covery of the Sinaitic Codex, and before Tisehendorfs 
later studies on B. The lack of these two sources was 
the cause of many of his disagreements with Tischen- 
dorf's readings. 1 

Tregelles's collations of manuscripts were very ex- 
tensive, aud he devoted great attention to the Fathers. 

1 Gregory's Prolegomena to Teschendorf, 287-334, gives a 
collation of the texts of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort, with 
that of Teschendorf's eighth Critica Major. 



132 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Founder of 
" Compara- 
tive Criti- 
cism.' ' 



Critical 
principles. 



His critical work was distinguished by scrupulous 
exactness. Scrivener says that where Tischendorf 
and Tregelles differ in their collations, Tregelles is 
seldom in the wrong. In many cases he compared 
his own collations with Tischendorf s and settled the 
differences by a reexamination of the manuscript. 

Tregelles introduced the method which he styled 
"Comparative Criticism," that is, the process which 
seeks to determine the comparative value and to trace 
the mutual relations of authorities of every kind upon 
which the original text of the ISTew Testament is based. 
He ignored the Eeceived Text and most of the cur- 
sives, and based his text on the oldest uncials, the 
Versions down to the seventh century, and the early 
Fathers. His range of ancient authorities was larger 
than Lachmann's. He denied that exactly defined 
families of documents could be distinguished, while 
admitting that two general classes of texts might be 
recognised, — Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan, — 
although some codices might occasionally be distin- 
guished from the Alexandrian as "Western." 

His critical principles are stated at length in his 
" Printed Text." He lays down the following state- 
ments: Eeadings whose antiquity is proved apart 
from manuscripts are found in repeated instances in 
a few of the extant copies. These few, the text of 
which is thus proved to be ancient, include some, and 
often several, of the oldest manuscripts extant. In 
some cases the attested ancient reading is found in 
but one or two manuscripts, but those of the most an- 
cient class. And, as certain manuscripts are found, 
by a process of inductive proof, to contain an ancient 
text, their character as witnesses must be considered 
to be so established that, in other places, their testi- 
mony deserves peculiar weight. As to Versions, the 
concurrence of two Versions in a definite reading ex- 



TBEQELLES 133 

eludes the supposition that the reading is merely an 
accident of transcription or translation ; and that the 
accordance with them of certain manuscripts is like- 
wise the result of fortuitous circumstances or of arbi- 
trary alteration. When the number of according 
Versions is multiplied, the balance of probabilities is 
highly convincing. As to patristic citations, although 
often modernised to suit the Greek text to which a 
copyist was accustomed, yet when the reading is such 
that it could not be altered without changing the 
whole texture of their remarks, or when they are so 
express in their testimony that such a reading is that 
found in such a place, we need not doubt that it was 
so in their copies; and so, too, if we find that the 
reading of early Fathers agrees with other early 
testimonies in opposition to those which are later. 

The antiquity of documents is to be preferred to Insists on 
their number as a basis of testimony. The only proof testimony, 
that a reading is ancient is that it is found in some 
ancient document. The selection of authorities must 
be based upon proof that the witnesses are worthy of 
confidence. Ancient manuscripts, the older Versions, 
and such early citations as have come down to us in a 
trustworthy form, are the only certain vouchers that 
any reading is ancient. Besides the manuscripts which 
are actually the oldest, we may use as valuable auxilia- 
ries those whose general text accords with them, be- 
cause the character of such manuscripts is shown by 
their general agreement with the oldest, and because 
it is also proved by the same criteria of accordance 
with the best early Versions and citations. It cannot 
be objected that we do not know by whom the ancient 
copies were written. This would apply equally to a 
vast number of the modern codices. The so-called 
uniform text of the later manuscripts is not an evi- 
dence in its favour, and does not show that the varia- 



134 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

tions of the oldest manuscripts from one another and 
from the more recent prove the oldest to be unreliable. 
The later Greek manuscripts are not so uniform in 
their text as are the later Latin ; yet the recent manu- 
scripts of the Vulgate agree in perhaps two thousand 
readings, differing from what Jerome could have given, 
and also from the very few ancient copies which have 
been transmitted. Thus the Latin manuscripts supply 
an argument from analogy. The mass of recent copies 
contain a text notoriously and demonstrably incorrect ; 
the few oldest manuscripts supply the means of emen- 
dation, and these few must be followed if we think of 
giving the genuine text of Jerome's Version. Besides 
all this, it is not strictly true that these more modern 
copies contain a uniform text. The difficulty of advo- 
cating the mass of modern copies is great, not only 
because of their internal variations, but also because 
the witnesses stand opposed to every one of the most 
ancient copies, to the ancient Versions as a class, and 
to every Christian writer of the first three centuries of 
whom we have any considerable remains. 
Proposals in In his New Testament Tregelles proposes : (1) To 
Testament. S^ Ye ^ ne ^ ex ^ on the authority of the oldest manuscripts 
and Versions, and with the aid of the earlier citations, 
so as to present, as far as possible, the text commonly 
received in the fourth century, always stating what 
authorities support, and what oppose, the text given. 
(2) In cases in which we have certain proofs which 
carry us still nearer to the apostolic age, to use the 
data so afforded. (3) In cases in which the oldest docu- 
ments agree in certain undoubted transcriptional error, 
to state the reading so supported, but not to follow it, 
and to give the grounds on which another reading is 
preferred. (4) In matters altogether doubtful, to state 
distinctly the conflicting evidence, and thus to approxi- 
mate toward a true text. (5) To give the various read- 



TBEGELLES 135 

ings of all the uncial manuscripts and ancient Versions 
very correctly, so that it may be clearly seen what 
readings possess any ancient authority whatever. To 
these add the more important citations of the earlier 
writers to Eusebius inclusive. The places are also to 
be indicated in which the common text departs from 
the ancient readings. 

As compared with Tischendorf, Tregelles was more Tregelles 
accurate in the use of his material, without being pos- dotcom- 6 "" 
sessed of Tischendorf's resources. He was less rest- pared, 
less than Tischendorf, and slower in making public the 
results of his labours, so that the different portions of 
his work do not exhibit the same changes of opinion 
which characterise Tischendorf. Both added im- 
mensely to the accumulations of evidence. 

In the inspection of Codex Basilianus in the Vatican 
(B of the Apocalypse), one of the three ancient copies 
which contain that book, he satisfied himself that the 
manuscript contained it entire, it having been pre- 
viously supposed, owing to imperfect collation, that it 
had many gaps. At Florence, he collated the New Tregelles's 

Testament portion of the Codex Amiatinus, a most im- la ^°^ s in 
. p . T . . . ; p _ collation, 

portant manuscript 01 the Latin translation 01 Jerome, 

belonging to the sixth century. The previous partial 
collation by Heck was defective and inaccurate. At 
Modena he made what was virtually the first collation 
of Codex Mutinensis of the Acts (ninth century). He 
was the first to collate Codex Nanii, V of the Gospels 
(tenth century), in the library of St. Mark at Venice. 
At Munich he collated Codex Monacensis, X of the 
Gospels (tenth century). This is an uncial manuscript 
with ancient readings, but with a commentary in cur- 
sive characters interspersed. Its collation was, in 
parts, exceedingly difficult, owing to the fading of the 
ink, and the difficulty was aggravated by Tregelles's 
bad eyes. The order of the Gospels is the reverse of 



136 TEXTUAL CBITICISM 

that in our Bibles, but before the beginning of John 
were two injured leaves, apparently overlooked by 
Teschendorf, and containing fragments of Matt. 6 : 
3-10. The important Codex Colbertinus, known as 
the Queen of the Cursives, and containing the Gospels, 
Acts, Catholic Epistles and Epistles of Paul, had been 
collated imperfectly by Larroque and Griesbach, and 
possibly by Scholz. It was reserved for Tregelles to 
do the work faithfully. He says, " I have had some 
experience in the collation of manuscripts, but none 
has ever been so wearisome to my eyes, and exhaustive 
of every faculty of attention, as this was." The leaves 
had been injured by damp, so that a part of the vellum 
was utterly destroyed. In the book of Acts the leaves 
were so firmly stuck together that, when they were 
separated, the ink adhered rather to the opposite page 
than to its own, so that, in many leaves, the manu- 
script could only be read by observing how the ink had 
set off, and thus reading the Greek words backward. 
He collated, in all, twenty-nine codices, besides editing 
Codex Zacynthius, H, of Luke (eighth century), and 0, 
a fragment of eight leaves (ninth century), containing 
about thirteen verses of the Gospel of John. The 
eight leaves of this manuscript were used for binding 
a copy of Chrysostom's Homilies which was brought 
from Mt. Athos to Moscow, where the leaves were dis- 
covered by Matthaei. 
Von Geb- Of Tischendorf and Tregelles, Dr. 0. von Gebhardt 

Teschendorf sa y s : " Both were in like measure equipped with the 
and Tre- requisite qualities, — sharp-sightedness and an accuracy 
ge es. £k a |. g ave j^g^ j- j.] ie sma n es t particulars, and both, 

with their whole soul, fixed their eyes upon the goal 
set before them, and strove with like zeal to reach it. 
That it was not their lot to attain equal success, lay in 
the fact that Tischendorf was much more enterprising, 
more keen-eyed for new discoveries, and far better 



TBEGELLES 137 

favoured by fortune. But the success which each of 
them reached, at the same time, is so great that they 
leave far behind them everything that had been hitherto 
done in this realm. In the toilsome work of collating 
manuscripts and deciphering palimpsests, both Teschen- 
dorf and Tregelles spent many years of their lives, being 
thoroughly persuaded that the restoration of the New 
Testament text could be striven for with success only 
upon the basis of a diplomatically accurate investiga- 
tion of the oldest documents. But while it was Tesch- 
endorf's peculiarity to publish in rapid succession the 
swiftly ripened fruits of his restless activity, and so to 
permit his last result to come into existence, so to 
speak, before the eyes of the public, Tregelles loved 
to fix his full energy undisturbed upon the attainment 
of the one great aim, and to come into publicity only 
with the completest which he had to offer. So we see 
Tischendorf editing the New Testament twenty times 
within the space of thirty years, not to mention his 
other numerous publications, while Tregelles did not 
believe that he could venture on the publication of the 
only edition of the New Testament which we possess 
frpm him, until after twenty years' preparation." l 

Even Burgon, the bitter enemy of the principles of Testimony 
Tischendorf and Tregelles, says : " It is certain that by ° ur S on - 
the conscientious diligence with which those distin- 
guished scholars have respectively laboured, they have 
erected monuments of their learning and ability which 
will endure forever. Their editions of the New Testa- 
ment will not be superseded by any new discoveries, by 
any future advances in the science of textual criticism. 
The manuscripts which they have edited will remain 
among the most precious materials for future study." 2 

1 Article "Bibeltext," in Herzog's Beal-Encyklopadie, 

2 The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to jSt. Mark, 



138 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Alford's 

Greek 

Testament. 



Protests 
against rev- 
erence for 
the Textus 
Receptus. 



Alford. — Henry Alf ord, Dean of Canterbury, issued 
the first volume of his Greek Testament in 1849. The 
fourth and final volume appeared in January, 1861. 
The several volumes passed through numerous edi- 
tions. Seven of the first two volumes, and five of the 
third and fourth, were published. In the fifth edition 
he nearly rewrote the text and digest of readings, 
chiefly on the basis of the labours of Tischendorf and 
Tregelles. In the sixth he incorporated the readings 
of the Codex Sinaiticus. He added another protest 
against the irrational reverence for the Textus Ee- 
ceptus as standing in the way of all chance of dis- 
covering "the genuine word of God," and advocated a 
return to the evidence of the most ancient witnesses 
as against the imposing array of later manuscripts. 
He says : " Experience has brought about some changes 
in my convictions with regard to the application of 
canons of subjective criticism to the consensus of 
ancient manuscripts. In proportion as I have been 
led severely to examine how far we can safely depend 
on such subjective considerations, I confess that the 
limits of their applicability have become narrowed. 
In very many cases they may be made to tell with 
equal force either way." He drew his apparatus 
mostly from the works of others, but himself com- 
pared B in selected passages, and contributed some 
new readings from other sources. His text appears 
to be nearer to that of Tregelles than to that of 
Tischendorf. ' 

Preface, viii, ix. See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 269-272. Tre- 
gelles, Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament. 
Carl Bertheau, article " Tregelles," in Herzog's Real-Encyklo- 
padie. O. von Gebhardt, article " Bibeltext," in Herzog's Real- 
Encyklopadie. Scrivener, Introduction, II, 238-241. F. J. A. 
Hort, Journal of Philology, March, 1858. T. H. Home, Intro- 
duction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, 10th ed., IV, 1856; 11th ed. ? 1863. 



CHAPTER XV 

THIRD PERIOD (1830-81). REACTION TOWARD THE 
TEXTUS RECEPTUS. SCRIVENER AND BURGON 

Uxder the influence of Tregelles, many English 
scholars returned to the principles of Bentley. Dr. 
Gregory naively remarks, at this point, "Non tamen 
desunt viri docti quibus hsec novitas vix placeat." 
Tregelles himself feelingly alludes to this. "It is 
to be lamented that the feeling thus exists, even on 
the part of some scholars, that recurrence to the most 
ancient sources for the text of Scripture deserves to be 
so condemned and deprecated that they hold up critics 
(conscientious men it may be) who press the impor- 
tance of ancient testimony, as reckless innovators, and 
they thus lead an unjudging crowd to condemn them 
and their labours." Tregelles found himself in conflict 
with the leading representative of the conservative 
school of Textual Criticism in England, Dr. Prederick Dr. Scrive- 
Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Prebendary of Exeter and of 'the con^ 
Vicar of Hendon. Dr. Scrivener's attitude is set forth servatiye 
in his own words in the second edition of his Intra- in England. 
duction, repeated in the fourth and last edition. 
"All that can be inferred from searching into the 
history of the sacred text amounts to no more than 
this : that extensive variations, arising no doubt from 
the wide circulation of the New Testament in different 
regions and among nations of diverse languages, sub- 
sisted from the earliest period to which our records 
extend. Beyond this point our investigations cannot 
139 



Scrivener. 



140 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

be carried without indulging in pleasant speculations, 
which may amuse the fancy but cannot inform the 
sober judgment." 
Works by Dr. Scrivener, in I860, edited Stephen's text of 

1550, adding the readings of the Elzevirs, Beza, Lach- 
mann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. Six editions are 
noted by Dr. Gregory, the latest in 1877. In 1881 
appeared The New Testament in the Original Greek 
according to the Text followed in the Authorised Ver- 
sion (T R. Beza, 1598), together ivith the Valuations 
adopted in the Revised Version. An appendix gives 
a list of the passages in which the Authorised Version 
departs from Beza's text and agrees with certain 
earlier editions of the Greek Testament. An impor- 
tant contribution to the study of Textual Criticism 
was his Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the 
Neip Testament, 1861. The fourth edition, revised, 
and enlarged to two volumes, appeared in 1894, edited 
by the Eev. Edward Miller, an earnest supporter of 
the conservative school. The list of manuscripts has 
been increased to 3791, and most of the accounts of 
ancient Versions have been rewritten by eminent spe- 
cialists. Notwithstanding its extremely conservative 
character, the work is valuable. Dr. Scrivener was 
possessed of large learning on textual questions, but 
fought every inch of the ground yielded by the Ee- 
ceived Text. His experience led him gradually to 
modify his views on some points, and to make some 
concessions. At the time of his death he was moving 
in the direction of the substitution of the older, uncial 
text for that of the Textus Keceptus. He gave up 
1 John 5:7, 8, and decided for os against debs in 
1 Timothy 3 : 16. The movement, however, was slow 
and hesitating. In his last edition of Stephen's text 
(1887) he characterised Westcott and Hort's edition 
as "splendidum peccatum, non KTrj/na e? det." 



SCRIVENER AND BURGON 141 

With Dean Burgon lie stood for the position that 
all available authorities, and not the most ancient 
only, should be considered in the settlement of the 
text, and earnestly combated the tendency to rely too 
exclusively on the testimony of & and B. He was, 
however, more moderate than Burgon, who pronounced Opinion of 
H and B to be the most corrupt of manuscripts. Codex B - 
Scrivener says : " We accord to Codex B at least as 
much weight as to any single document in existence ; " 
and again, "We have no wish to dissemble the great 
value of the Codex Vaticanus, which, in common with 
our opponents, we regard as the most weighty single 
authority that we possess." He also differed with 
Burgon on 1 Tim. 3 : 16. ^In the last edition of the 
Introduction his discussion of principles is summed 
up in four practical rules : (1) That the true readings Critical 
of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be derived summedup 
from any one set of authorities, whether manuscripts, 
Versions, or Fathers, but ought to be the result of a 
patient comparison and careful estimate of the evi- 
dence supplied by them all. (2) That where there is 
a real agreement between all documents containing the 
Gospels up to the sixth century, and in the other parts 
of the New Testament up to the ninth, the testimony 
of later manuscripts and Versions, though not to be 
rejected unheard, must be regarded with great suspi- 
cion, and unless upheld by strong internal evidence, 
can hardly be adopted. (3) That where the more 
ancient documents are at variance with each other, 
the later uncial and cursive copies, especially those of 
approved merit, are of real importance as being the 
surviving representatives of other codices, very prob- 
ably as early, perhaps even earlier, than any now 
extant. (4) That in weighing conflicting evidence we 
must assign the highest value, not to those readings 
which are attested by the greatest number of wit- 



142 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Burgon's 
defence of 
Mark 16 : 9- 
20. 



His textual 
principles. 



nesses, but to those which come to us from several 
remote and independent sources, and which bear the 
least likeness to each other in respect to genius and 
general character. 

He admits that the principle of grouping is sound, 
but with certain reservations. A full statement of his 
opinions on the late views of comparative criticism is 
given in the Introduction, II, X. 

Burgon. — John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, was 
the friend and coadjutor of Scrivener. He is known 
principally by his elaborate defence of the authenticity 
of the last twelve verses of Mark's G-ospel, and by his 
savage attack on the Eevised Version. He was a 
learned scholar and an acute critic, and did much work 
in inspecting and collating manuscripts, especially cur- 
sives, in France and Italy. Much of his work was pub- 
lished in The Guardian, and is not easily accessible. 
" Burgon' s work is dominated by the conviction that 
every word of the Scriptures was dictated by the in- 
spiration of the Holy Spirit ; that it is inconceivable 
that the Author of such a gift would allow it to become 
unavailing, and would not providentially interfere to 
guard it from being corrupted or lost ; that we may 
therefore rightly believe that He guided His church 
through the course of ages to eliminate the errors 
which the frailty of man had introduced, and conse- 
quently that the text which has been used by the 
church for centuries must be accepted as at least sub- 
stantially correct." * Testing the value of the ancient 
manuscripts by comparison with the Textus Beceptus, 
he stated his conclusion as follows : " By far the most 
depraved text is that exhibited by Codex D ; next to 
D the most untrustworthy codex is K ; next in impur- 
ity comes B ; then the fragmentary Codex C ; our own 

1 Dr. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of 
the New Testament, 



SCRIVENER AND BURGON 143 

A being beyond all doubt disfigured by the fewest 
blemishes of any." According to Burgon, the antiq- 
uity of the most ancient manuscripts is due to their 
badness. They were known to be so bad that they 
were little used, and consequently remained untouched, 
and therefore have survived when better manuscripts 
have perished. 1 

Green, Kelly, McClellan, Abbot, Ward, Tyler. — 
Thomas Sheldon Green, of Cambridge, is known by Thomas 
A Course of Developed Criticism on Passages of the New ^^ n 
Testament, materially affected by Various Readings, Lon- 
don, 1856 ; The Twofold New Testament, being a New 
Translation accompanying a newly formed Text, London, 
1865 ; A Critical Appendix to the Twofold New Testa- 
ment, London, 1871. His text was based on ancient 
witnesses, and agreed, mainly, with Tregelles and 
Tischendorf . The text of the Apocalypse was edited 
by William Kelly, The Revelation of John edited in William 
Greek with a New English Version and a Statement of jyJn B. 
the Chief Authorities and Various Readings, London, McClellan. 
1860. John Brown McClellan published The New Tes- 
tament ... a New Translation . . . from a critically 
revised Greek Text . . . Harmony of the Four Gospels, 
Notes, and Dissertations. Only the first volume, contain- 
ing the Four Gospels, appeared (London, 1875). Like 
Burgon, he condemned X and B as the worst codices, 
and regarded internal probability as the surest guide 
in distinguishing between disputed readings. 

The lamented Ezra Abbot, from the year 1856, de- Ezra Abbot, 
voted himself to the New Testament text, though he 
made no attempt to edit a text. The results of his 
studies appeared in numerous articles and pamphlets, 
a list of which may be found in Gregory's Prolegomena, 

1 Many interesting particulars concerning Burgon will be 
found in Dr. Schaff's Companion to the Greek Testament and 
EnglishVersion, 3d ed., 84, 108, 119 ff., 191, 293 it, 378, 426, 491. 



144 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

276. Also in the volume Anglo-American Bible Revi- 
sion, New York, 1879, 86-98, in The New Revision and 
its Study, Philadelphia, 1881, reprinted in part in B. 
H. Kennedy's Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of 
the New Testament, London, 1882, and in the American 
edition of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 1866-70. 
He was one of the American committee on the Revised 
Version, and was associated with Dr. C. R. Gregory in 
the preparation of the Prolegomena of Teschendorf's 
eighth edition. Mention should also be made of the 
W.H.Ward, treatise of Dr. William Hayes Ward of New York, 
A. W. Tyler. Examination of the Various Readings of 1 Timothy 3 : 
16, Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover, 1865, and of two Dis- 
sertations by A. Wellington Tyler, Our Lord's Sacer- 
dotal Prayer, John 17, a New Critical Text, etc., and 
Paid's Panegyric of Love, a New Critical Text, etc., 
Bibliotheca Sacra, 1871, 1873 ; also a Critical Appara- 
tus to 1 Cor. 12 : 27 — 13 : 13, in which the Patristic wit- 
nesses are carefully collected. 



CHAPTER XVI 

THIRD PERIOD (1830-81). WESTCOTT AND HORT, 
AND THE REVISERS' TEXT OE 1881 



In 1881 appeared The JSTeiv Testament in the Origi- Westcott 
nal Greek, two volumes, Cambridge and London, by ^w^esta- 
Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., Canon of Peterborough ment. 
and Kegius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and 
now Bishop of Durham, and Fenton John Anthony 
Hort, D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cam- 
bridge. The first volume contained the text, and the 
second the exposition of the textual principles and 
methods of the editors, with notes on select readings, 
orthography, and Old Testament quotations. 

This work was announced as an attempt to present 
exactly the original words of the New Testament, so 
far as they can now be determined from surviving docu- 
ments, by the application of criticism in distinguishing 
and setting aside those readings which have originated 
at some link in the chain of transmission. The editors 
made no attempt to amass new material, but chose to 
rely upon the stores accumulated by their predecessors, 
confining themselves to the work of investigating and 
editing the text itself. Their fresh evidence was 
chiefly patristic, derived in a great measure from writ- 
ings or fragments of writings first published during the 
last hundred years, or now edited from better manu- 
scripts than were formerly known. 

Their textual principles were elaborated in their The Intro- 
Introduction, prepared by Dr. Hort, a technical work ductlon - 
l 145 



146 



TEXTUAL GBITIGISM 



Text claims 
to be based 
on the high- 
est ancient 
authority. 



Genealogi- 
cal method. 



of enormous labour. To this the reader must be re- 
ferred, since it is impossible adequately to exhibit its 
contents in a condensed statement. 

The aim, then, of Westcott and Hort, like that of 
Tischendorf and Tregelles, is to make the closest ap- 
proximation to the apostolic text itself, thus placing 
their objective point back of Lachmann's, which was 
the text of the fourth century. The facts of textual 
history, they assert, as attested by Versions and patris- 
tic quotations, show that it is no longer possible to 
speak of "the text of the fourth century," since most 
of the important variations were in existence before 
the middle of the fourth century, and many can be 
traced back to the second. "Thus the text of this 
edition, in that larger sense of the word 6 text ' which 
includes the margin, rests exclusively on direct ancient 
authority, and its primary text rests exclusively on 
direct ancient authority of the highest kind." 

The proper method of textual genealogy consists in 
the more or less complete recovery of the texts of suc- 
cessive ancestors by analysis and comparison of the 
varying texts of their respective descendants, each 
ancestral text so recovered being in its turn used, in 
conjunction with other similar texts, for the recovery 
of a text of a yet earlier common ancestor. 

The object, in brief, is, instead of simply estimating 
authorities in the order of their age, to arrange them 
into groups which have descended from common an- 
cestors, and determine the age and character of each 
group. All the documents representing a text are 
examined with a view to tracing out the resemblances 
between them, and so classifying them in groups, 
larger or smaller, according to likeness. This process 
grows out of the principle that identity of reading im- 
plies identity of origin. Though it is possible that 
identity of reading may arise from accidental coin- 



WESTCOTT AND HORT 



147 



cidence, yet the chances in favour of that possibility- 
are relatively small, and diminish with the increase of 
the number of texts which agree in the reading. The 
great bulk of identities of reading may be taken as 
certain evidence of a common origin. In other words, 
classification of documents according to their resem- 
blance is a classification of them according to origin. 
This community of origin may be either complete, 
that is, due to a common ancestry for their whole 
texts, or partial, that is, due to mixture. 

This factor of mixture greatly complicates the pro- 
cess. If each document were derived simply from a 
single previous document, all the documents, each with 
its single parent, would fall into a simple genealogy. 
But a text may be mixed, that is, it may not have 
been copied from a single exemplar, but from two or 
more of different types, the copyist selecting the read- 
ing now of one and now of another, or combining the 
readings by mere addition, or by fusing them, thus 
making what are termed " conflate " readings. Or 
again, a copyist might have been familiar with a docu- 
ment of a different type from that from which he was 
copying, and might have introduced its readings, from 
memory, into his own copy. Or he might have intro- 
duced into the text of his copy corrections from other 
codices which he found in the margin of his exemplar. 
The result would be a mixed text, which would con- 
fuse genealogy. 

Dr. Hort distinguishes four types of text in the sur- Types of 
viving documents : 1. Western. This appears to have ^western 
originated in Syria or Asia Minor, and to have been 
carried thence to Rome and Africa, and also to have 
passed through Palestine and Egypt into Ethiopia. It 
is represented especially by D (Gospels and Acts), and 
D 2 (Pauline Epistles), the Old Latin Versions, and the 
Greek copies on which they were based, and, in part, 



" Conflate' 
readings. 



148 



TEXTUAL CEITICISM 



2. Alexan- 
drian. 



3. Syrian. 



by the Curetonian Syriac. It appears to have been 
most widely diffused in Ante-Nicene times, and is the 
text of the Ante-Mcene Fathers who were not con- 
nected with Alexandria, — Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, 
Methodius. It is an independent text, quite distinct 
from all other types. Its prevailing characteristic is 
a love of paraphrase and of interpolation with a view 
to enrich the text. It is marked by additions, omis- 
sions, and assimilations of parallel passages. These 
peculiarities go to show that it originated at a time 
when little regard was paid to the exact words of the 
apostolic writings as compared with their substance; 
probably before the end of the second century. 

2. Alexandrian or Egyptian. This seems to have 
proceeded from a learned and skilful hand in the be- 
ginning of the third century, or even earlier. It is 
found in the quotations of the Alexandrian Fathers — 
Clement, Origen, Dionysius, Didymus, Cyril — and in 
the Egyptian Versions, especially the Memphitic. It 
also appears, in part, in Eusebius of Csesarea. Its 
characteristic is that which might be expected from 
the influence of a Greek literary centre — a tendency 
to polish the language by correcting forms, syntax, etc. 

3. Syrian. This was a mixed text, the result of a 
recension or revision of editors who desired to present 
the New Testament in a smooth and attractive form, 
and accordingly borrowed from all sources. It is best 
represented by A (in the Gospels, not in the Acts and 
Epistles), and by the Peshitto as distinct from the 
Curetonian. Its readings are found in the Scripture 
quotations of Chrysostom, who was Bishop of Syrian 
Antioch until 398, and Patriarch of Constantinople 
until his death in 407 ; also in those of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia (ob. 429), and of Diodorus of Antioch and 
Tarsus. The group is therefore also called Antiochian. 
Generally speaking, these readings are common in the 



WESTCOTT AND HOBT 149 

Fathers of the latter part of the fourth century and in 
all subsequent Fathers, but cannot be traced in the 
quotations of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. " The favourite 
text of Chrysostom and his age has disappeared en- 
tirely from use by the time we reach Origen " (War- 
field). The text is that of the mass of the cursives, 
most of which were written in Constantinople, and is 
mainly identical with the printed Textus Eeceptus. 
It is an eclectic text, marked by conflate readings, the 
elements of which are found in the other classes, and 
indicates an attempt to harmonise at least three con- 
flicting texts. It contains no ancient element that is 
not in these. 

"The qualities which the authors of the Syrian Qualities of 
text seem to have most desired to impress on it are text. ymn 
lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anx- 
ious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of 
the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done with- 
out recourse to violent measures. They were appar- 
ently equally desirous that he should have the benefit 
of instructive matter contained in all the existing texts, 
provided it did not confuse the context or introduce 
seeming contradictions. New omissions, accordingly, 
are rare, and where they occur are usually found to con- 
tribute to apparent simplicity. New interpolations, 
on the other hand, are abundant, most of them being 
due to harmonistic or other assimilation, fortunately 
capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in 
diction the Syrian text is conspicuously a full text. 
It delights in pronouns, conjunctions, and expletives, 
and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more 
considerable additions. As distinguished from the 
bold vigour of the Western scribes, and the refined 
scholarship of the Alexandrians, the spirit of its own 
corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely 
blameless on either literary or religious grounds as 



150 TEXTUAL CBITICISM 

regards vulgarised or unworthy diction, yet showing 
no marks of either critical or spiritual insight, it pre- 
sents the New Testament in a form smooth and attrac- 
tive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force, 
more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for 
repeated and diligent study." * Syrian readings, being 
later than Western and Alexandrian, and derived from 
Western and older sources, are to be rejected when 
their testimony differs from that of the others. 
4. Neutral or 4. Neutral or pre-Syrian. This is represented by B 
pre-Synan. an( j j ar g e ]y by ^ an( j cames nearest to the Apostolic 

originals. It cannot be assigned to any local centre, 
but belongs originally to all the Eastern world. It 
is characterised by careful copying, and is free from 
Western corruptions. It appears in places far removed 
from Alexandria. In Asia Minor it was superseded 
by the Western text. The common original of B and 
K, for by far the greater part of their identical read- 
ings, whatever may have been its own date, has a very 
ancient and pure text. Their coincidences are due to 
the extreme antiquity of the common original from 
which the ancestors of the two manuscripts have 
diverged, the date of which cannot be later than the 
early part of the second century, and may well be yet 
earlier. There is no clear difference of character in 
the fundamental text common to B and & in any part 
of the New Testament in which B is not defective. 
The textual phenomena which we find when we com- 
pare them singly and jointly with other documents 
are, throughout, precisely those which would present 
themselves in representatives of two single lines diverg- 
ing from a point near the autographs, and not coming 
into contact subsequently. 

The readings of the Neutral text, when established, 

i Dr. Hort, Introduction, § 187. 



WESTCOTT AND HORT 151 

are to be accepted in the face of the numerical pre- 
ponderance of other texts. 

Dr. Hort thus recapitulates : "The continuity, it will Dr. Hort 
be seen, is complete. Early in the second century we iat^s PltU " 
find the Western text already wandering into greater 
and greater adulteration of the Apostolic text, which, 
while doubtless holding its ground in different places, 
has its securest refuge at Alexandria ; but there, in turn, 
it suffers from another but slighter series of changes, 
and all this before the middle of the third century. 
At no long time after, we find an attempt made, 
apparently at Antioch, to remedy the growing con- 
fusion of texts by the editing of an eclectic text com- 
bining readings from the three principal texts, itself 
further revised on like principles, and in that form 
used by great Antiochian theologians not long after 
the middle of the fourth century. From that date, 
and indeed earlier, we find a chaos of varying mixed 
texts, in which, as time advances, the elder texts re- 
cede, and the Antiochian text, now established at 
Constantinople, increasingly prevails. Then even the 
later types with mixed base disappear, and, with the 
rarest exceptions, the Constantinopolitan text alone 
is copied, often at first with relics of its vanquished 
rivals included, till at last these two dwindle, and in 
the copies written shortly before the invention of print- 
ing, its victory is all but complete. At each stage 
there are irregularities and obscurities ; but we believe 
the above to be a true sketch of the leading incidents 
in the history of the text of the New Testament ; and, 
if it be true, its significance as a key to the com- 
plexities of documentary evidence is patent without 
explanation." 

Briefly, then, while the majority of our extant manu- 
scripts contain a revised, and therefore less original, 
text, a comparatively small group contains texts which 



152 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Reception of 
Westcott 
and Hort's 
Testament. 



Points 
assailed. 



The third- 
century 
recension. 



were not subject to this revision or were prior to it. 
Consequently, the evidence of this small group is 
usually to be preferred to that of the great mass of 
manuscripts and versions. 

Westcott and Hort's New Testament received a cor- 
dial welcome from many scholars in England and else- 
where, from Eoman Catholics as well as Protestants. 1 
On the other hand, the work was severely attacked by 
the conservative critics, notably by Dr. Scrivener and 
Dean Burgon. Perhaps the most vulnerable point was 
the very corner-stone of the textual theory — the au- 
thoritative recension at Antioch of the Greek text, 
about the middle of the third century, which, in its 
turn, became the standard for a similar revision of the 
Syrian text, representing the transmutation of the 
Curetonian into the Peshitto, while the Greek recen- 
sion itself underwent a second revision. 2 Dr. Scrivener 
says : " Of this twofold authoritative revision of the 
Greek text, of this formal transmutation of the Cure- 
tonian Syriac into the Peshitto, although they must 
have been, of necessity, public acts of great churches 
in ages abounding in councils, general or provincial, 
not one trace remains in the history of Christian antiq- 
uity ; no one writer seems conscious that any modifica- 
tion, either of the Greek Scriptures or of the vernacu- 
lar translation, was made in or before his time. It 
is as if the Bishops' Bible had been thrust out of the 
English Church service and out of the studies of her 
divines, and the Bible of 1611 had silently taken its 
place, no one knew how, or when, or why, or, indeed, 
that any change whatever had been made. Yet, re- 
garding his speculative conjecture as indubitably true, 

1 Dr. Schaff has collected a number of tributes in his Com- 
panion to the Greek Testament and English Version, 3d ed., 
280 ff. 

2 See Hort's Introduction, §§ 189, 190. 



CRITICISMS OF WESTCOTT AND HORT 153 



Dr. Hort proceeds to name the text as it stood before 
his imaginary era of transfusion, a pre-Syrian text, 
and that into which it was changed, sometimes Antio- 
chian, more often Syrian ; while of the latter recension, 
though made deliberately, as our author believes, by 
the authoritative voice of the Eastern Church, he does 
not shrink from declaring that all distinctively Syrian 
readings must be at once rejected, thus making a clean 
sweep of all critical materials, — Fathers, Versions, 
manuscripts, uncial or cursive, comprising about nine- 
teen-twentieths of the whole mass, which do not corre- 
spond with his preconceived opinion of what a correct 
text ought to be.*' 

Exception was also taken to the editors' omissions 
from the text ; to their inconsistency in rejecting West- 
ern readings on the one hand, and on the other in in- 
dorsing their omissions of what was attested by other 
authorities. The names given to the families of texts 
were challenged. The term " Western" was declared 
to be inaccurate, since the type of text so designated 
was not confined to the West, and even the editors ad- 
mit that readings of this class were current in the East 
as well as in the West, and probably, to a great extent, 
had originated there. The name " Neutral " was con- 
demned, as presupposing that all additions or altera- 
tions in the text were due to later corruptions. Also 
the name " Alexandrian," because used in a sense not 
previously employed. It was further objected that the 
designation of the Curetonian Syriac as " the Old 
Syriac," and of the Peshitto as " the Vulgate," begged 
the whole question of the relative age of the two. The 
editors were severely taken to task for assigning undue 
weight to the testimony of K and B. " That K B should 
thus lift up their heads against all the world is much, 
especially having regard to the fact that several Ver- 
sions and not a few Fathers are older than they ; for 



Omissions. 
Names 
given to 
families of 
texts. 



Designation 
of Cureton- 
ian as " Old 
Syriac." 
Undue 
weight as- 
signed to n 
and B. 



154 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



Revisers of 
1881 did not 
construct a 
Greek text. 



while we grant that a simple patristic citation, stand- 
ing by itself, is of little value, yet when the context or 
current of exposition renders it clear what reading 
these writers had before them, they must surely, for 
that passage, be equivalent as authorities to a manu- 
script of their own age " (Scrivener). 1 

The Revisers of 1881. — The history of the Eevised 
Version of 1881 is too well known to require recapitu- 
lation. Naturally a large proportion of the changes 
introduced by the Revisers grew out of differences in 
the text translated. The Eevisers, in the matter of 
text, did not claim to be discoverers. They confined 
themselves mostly to the verification and registration 
of the best-established conclusions of modern textual 
criticism. Their text was drawn from the best docu- 
mentary sources which have been discovered in the last 
three hundred years. It has been estimated that the 
Greek text of 1881 differs from that of 1611 in at least 
5788 readings. In their preface the Eevisers say, " A 
revision of the Greek text was the necessary founda- 
tion of our work, but it did not fall within our province 
to construct a continuous and complete Greek text." 
* In the English committee, Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener 
were the recognised authorities on textual questions. 
The traditional text and the later text had therefore 
each a fair hearing. The Eevisers followed the text of 
Westcott and Hort closely, though not absolutely. 
" The combination of X B with two or more of the 



1 The principal objections are well stated in the recent vol- 
ume of Dr. George Salmon, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin : 
Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testa- 
ment, London, 1897. The book has a peculiar interest as 
coming from a close personal friend of Dr. Hort. The textual 
theory of the two editors is handled with great candour and dis- 
crimination, and some of the points against it are very effec- 
tively made. 



scrivener's and palmer's testaments 155 

greater uncials has been treated by them as all but de- Dr. Sanday 
cisive. The combination of K B with one other first- °? ^? s e , f e e ^ t> 
class uncial has also had the greatest weight. There 
are forty-one instances of agreement with this combi- 
nation, and only three instances of difference from it. 
In the case of the single pair tf B alone, there is much 
greater indecision. Their authority has been followed 
in from fifteen to nineteen cases, and rejected in twelve. 
With any other single supporter than K, B has carried 
less weight still, the numbers here being eleven to four, 
while the isolated evidence of B has been rejected in 
nine out of ten cases " (Professor Sanday). 1 

Two editions of the Greek Testament, which have a 
special interest in connection with the Eevised Version, 
appeared simultaneously with the edition of Westcott 
and Hort. The Eevisers were not, however, responsi- 
ble for their publication. Neither claimed to be an in- 
dependent, critical recension of the text. The first was 
by Dr. Scrivener, The Neio Testament in the Original Editions of 
Greek according to the Text folloived in the Authorised and^almer 
Version, together ivith the Valuations adopted in the He- 
vised Version, Cambridge, 1881. The new readings 
were placed at the foot of the page, and the displaced 
readings were printed in the text in heavier type. The 
appendix furnished a list of the passages in which the 
Authorised Version differs from Beza's text of 1598, 
and agrees with certain earlier editions of the Greek 
Testament. The other edition was by Dr. E. Palmer, 
Archdeacon of Oxford, H KAINH AIA0HKH. TJie 
Greek Testament with the Readings adopted by the Be- 

1 On the Revisers' text see a series of articles by Rev. W. 
Sanday, D.D., The Revised Version of the New Testament, in 
the Expositor, 2d series, II, 1881 ; very valuable. See also Dr. 
B. B. Warfield, Presbyterian Quarterly, April, 1882, and The 
Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, London, 
1882, supposed to be by Bishop Ellicott and Archdeacon Palmer. 



156 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

visers of the Authorised Version, Oxford, 1881. Palmer 
gave the Greek text followed by the Revisers, and 
placed the rejected readings of the Textus Eeceptus 
and of the Authorised Version in foot-notes. The con- 
tinuous text has for its basis Stephen's third edition 
(1550), which is followed in all cases where the Revis- 
ers do not prefer other readings. Stephen's orthog- 
raphy, spelling of proper names, and typographical 
peculiarities or errors are, with a few exceptions, re- 
tained, together with his marking of chapters. The 
verses are distributed according to the Authorised Ver- 
sion. 



CHAPTER XVII 

RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS. WEISS. STUDIES IN 
CODEX D 

Dr. Bernhard Weiss of Berlin has, for some time, Dr. Weiss's 
been carrying on a new and independent construction ? the text 
of the text. No summary statement of his textual 
principles has been presented, so far as I am aware, 
either by himself or by others. The results of his 
work appear in minute detail in his Neue Testament, 
TextlrritischeUntersuchungenund Textherstellung. Vol. I, 
Leipzig, 1893, contains the Acts, Catholic Epistles, and 
Apocalypse ; Vol. II, 1896, the Pauline Epistles. He 
complains that he has been constantly annoyed in his 
exegetical work by the uncertainty of the text. Neither 
the usual reasons of the commentators for determining 
the value of various readings nor the modern editions 
of the text appeared to offer him a satisfactory and cer- 
tain path toward a decision. The collations in Tischen- 
dorf s apparatus need to be verified anew. He treats 
the text under the heads of Omissions and Additions, 
Changes of Position, and Orthographical Variations. 1 

Studies in the Codex Bezae. — Within a few years 
special attention has been directed at the peculiar 
readings of the Codex Bezse (D, Gospels and Acts) 
and their bearing upon the history of the text. The 
following section on this subject has been prepared by Rev. J. E. 
the Eev. James Everett Frame, Instructor in the New codexBeza 

1 See C. B. Gregory, "Bernhard Weiss and the New Testa- 
ment, 1 ' American Journal of Theology, January, 1897. 
167 



158 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Contradic- 
tory views 
of Hort and 
Burgon. 



History of 
Codex Bezse. 



Testament Department of Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. 

"When every allowance has been made for possible 
individual license, the text of D presents a truer image 
of the form in which the Gospels and Acts were most 
widely read in the third and probably a great part of 
the second century, than any other extant Greek 
manuscript." So Dr. Hort (Introduction, 2d ed., 
149). Codex Bezae, along with the Sinaiticus and the 
Vaticanus, exhibits " the most shamefully mutilated 
text," and has become the depository of " the largest 
amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and 
intentional perversions of truth which are discernible 
in any known copies of the Word of God." So Dean 
Burgon {Revision Revised, 16). These opinions have 
been registered to indicate at the outset the diver- 
sity of views which prevail in regard to this puz- 
zling uncial. 

Codex Bezse is a bilingual, Greek and Latin, so 
arranged that the Greek text has the place of honour 
on the left side of the open book, while the Latin 
Version has the right side. It contains at present the 
Gospels and Acts, though not a few leaves are miss- 
ing, as, for instance, Acts 22 : 29-28 : 31, which is 
lacking in both D (the Greek text) and d (the Latin 
Version). It is divided into lines or verses, that is, 
the arrangement is stichometric, although the divi- 
sions into lines do not always correspond with the 
divisions in sense. As to date, it is generally assigned 
to the beginning of the sixth century. It was first 
brought to public notice ten centuries later by Beza, 
who got possession of it in 1562. How long it had 
lain in the Monastery of Irenaeus in Lyons, whence 
Beza obtained it, is uncertain. In 1581 Beza presented 
it to the University of Cambridge, that it might be 
preserved, but not published ; for he thought the vari- 






r - 
« 1 



i 



It 

Z < 



?• •: & 8 '■ 

UMr< 

>.- «*3 %£ 

*s Vila's 

; £.3 frQft - '% 

t- *'£ Z^i 

;3^ ° f r P S 



- I z : 

% " -S 5 z - 
£ g ■ c |f 

* £ - y C l 



2V< 



£"*$£ 



~ w . 



a »•£ 

Z«c £ 



w * 7 ■£ 
132-5 



7 . a- <r 




S ~ 



o f- J & * s ©^ X j. & c^. 



CODEX BEZ^fl 



159 



ants, especially in Luke, might give offence. The 
warning was heeded, although Beza himself had pub- 
lished some of the variants in his Greek Testament, 
and other readings became known. Finally, however, 
William Whiston, the translator of Josephus, did the 
Codex into English in 1747; and in 1793 Thomas 
Kipling published the first edition of the Codex, call- 
ing it, after the name of its donor and of the Univer- 
sity to which it was given, The Cambridge Codex of 
Theodore Beza. 1 

An accurate edition, " being an exact copy in or- 
dinary type . . . with a critical Introduction, Anno- 
tations, and Facsimiles," was issued by Scrivener in 
1864 (Bezce Codex Cantabrigiensis, etc.), and a colla- 
tion of the readings of the Codex by Eb. Nestle (Novi 
Testamenti Greed Supplementum, 1896). To these two 
the student is referred until the appearance of the 
new photogravure reproduction, now preparing under 
the direction of the Cambridge authorities. 

A restoration of the " Western " or Eoman text of 
Acts and Luke has been attempted by Eried. Blass in 
his Acta Apostolorum, 1896 (ed. Minor), and his Evan- 
gelium secundum Lucam, 1897. Compare, also, his 
Editio Philologica of Acts, 1895. 2 

The present extraordinary interest in Codex Bezae 
is due, not so much to the fact of its variations from 
some given text, the Eeceptus or Westcott and Hort, 

1 William Whiston, Primitive Neio Testament, 1747. He 
also translated the Codex Claromontanus (Paul) and the Codex 
Alexandrinus (Catholic Epistles). Thomas Kipling, Codex 
Theodori Bezce Cantabrigiensis, 1793. 

2 See O. von Gebhardt, article "Bibeltext," Plerzog's Beal- 
Encyklopadie, Bd. II, S. 743. C. A. Briggs, Study of Holy 
Scripture, 1899, 200 ff. H. Trabaud, "Un Curieux Manuscrit 
du Nouveau Testament," Bevue de Thiol, et de Phil., 1896, 
378 ff. Gregory's Prolegomena, or any good Introduction, as 
Holtzmann, Julicher, Weiss, Salmon. 



First pub- 
lished edi- 
tion of 
Codex Bezse. 



Scrivener's 
edition and 
Nestle's col- 
lation. 



Blass's res- 
toration of 
the "West- 
ern " text of 
Acts and 
Luke's Gos- 
pel. 



160 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Unique for instance, as to the uniqueness of its variations. 

variations j n addition to the ordinary inaccuracies due to the 
writer of the Codex, or his archetype, or both, and the 
usual corruptions common to all codices, Codex D ex- 
hibits certain characteristic tendencies; such as the 
love for adding or recasting words, clauses, or sen- 
tences, and for harmonising apparently contradictory 
passages. As a specimen of the additions which this 
Codex alone contributes, see Luke 6. After the fourth 
verse we read, "On the same day, as He (Jesus) be- 
held a man labouring on the Sabbath, he said to him : 
Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art 
thou ; if however thou dost not know, cursed art thou 
and a transgressor of the law." In Luke 11 : 2, be- 
tween the words "pray" and "say," we read, "Use 
not vain repetitions as the rest do, for some think that 
they shall be heard for their much speaking. On the 
contrary, when ye pray," etc. In Acts 12 : 10, after 
" they went out," there is added, " and they descended 
the seven steps." In Acts 10 : 25, we find, " When 
Peter drew near unto Caesarea, one of the slaves ran 
forward and announced his arrival. And Cornelius 
jumped up." In Acts 11 : 27, after " Antioch," there 
is added, "and there was great rejoicing. And we 
being assembled," etc. This addition is interesting in 
the light of the so-called we-sections in Acts. 

It must not, however, be assumed from these few 
examples, that all the contributions of this Codex are 
alike interesting and valuable. As a matter of fact, 

Tendency to the tendency of Codex Bezae is to " conflate " the text, 

conflation. an( j tjn US most of the contributions are nothing more 
than simple glosses. 1 Furthermore, it must not be 
assumed that D stands alone in its variations. Rather 
it is a member of an ancient and honourable family. 

1 For detailed proof, see B. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apos- 
telgeschichte {Texte und Untersuchiuigen, XVII, 1897). 



CODEX BEZM 161 

The form of text which it preserves is supported by 
many Church Fathers of the second and following 
centuries, and by the Old Latin and Syriac Versions. 
Thus, although the Codex itself dates from the begin- 
ning of the sixth century, yet the type of text which Type of text 
it represents is traceable as far back as the second second cen-° 
century. It is to be found, for instance, in Cyprian tury. 
and Tertullian at Carthage, and in Irenaeus at Lyons, 
where Codex Bezae was discovered ; and traces of it 
appear in Clement and Origen at Alexandria, as well 
as at Eome. 1 

The Old Latin Versions, and the Versions in Syriac 
(Curetonian, Philoxenian, Lewis), likewise present a 
similar type of text. In fact, it is generally admitted 
that about the year 200 a type of text similar to that 
of Codex Bezae was spread abroad in Syria and in the 
West. Nay, more, traces of this text may possibly 
exist in Justin Martyr and Marcion, that is, as early 
as the first half of the second century, and thus it may 
be that Codex D represents the oldest edition of the 
New Testament books which gained a wide circulation. 2 
To this type of text the term "Western" has been The term 
applied since the time of Semler, and has been appro- h^^eo- 
priated also by Hort. 3 It is a conventional symbol, graphical 
and has no distinctively geographical signification. It §|J^ ca ~ 
is to the East that most scholars look for the origin 
of the Western text, and specifically to Syria and 
Antioch. Thence it spread over the lines of com- 
merce to Southern Gaul, Carthage, Eome, and Alex- 
andria. Codex Bezae thus does not stand alone. The 
majority of its typical characteristics are to be found 

1 See P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der Acta Aposto- 
loram, Berlin, 1892. Hort, Introduction, 113. 

2 See W. Bousset, Theologische Rundschau, I, 406-416, Juli, 
1898, S. 410. 

8 See Gregory's Prolegomena, 188. Hort, Introduction, 113. 

M 



162 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



1. Theory of 
Latinisation 
held by Mill, 
Wetstein, 
J. R. Harris. 



2. Chase's 
theory of 
Syriacisa- 
tion. 



throughout the entire Western group. Thus, in Matt. 
20 : 28, we find D supported in its insertion, or in 
Luke 10:42; 22:19-20; 23:34, supported in its 
omissions. Bearing in mind, therefore, that Codex 
Bezae is a member of a family, and the Baconian 
warning as to the vice of neglecting negative in- 
stances, we proceed to give a summary of recent 
opinions concerning the type of text represented by 
this Codex. 

1. Theory of Latinisation. — In facing a Graeco-Latin 
codex the first question is : Is the Greek text de- 
pendent upon the Latin, or is each independent ? The 
prevailing view up to the time of Griesbach was that 
the Western Greek text is due to a readjustment to 
the Latin Versions (so Mill, Wetstein). This " whim- 
sical " (Hort) theory, given up by Griesbach and his 
successors, is defended by J. Eendel Harris (Study of 
the Codex Bezce, 1891), who attempts to prove " that 
the whole of the Greek text of Codex Bezse, from the 
beginning of Matthew to the end of Acts, is a re- 
adjustment of an earlier text to the Latin Version." 
"The Greek has no certain value except where it 
differs from its own Latin, and must not any longer be 
regarded as an independent authority." And three 
years later (Four Lectures on the Western Text, 1894, 
73), " The Bezan Latin is more archaic than the Bezan 
Greek." 

2. Theory of Syriacisation. — Professor Harris's 
study induced another Cambridge scholar, Professor 
P. H. Chase, to investigate the Codex, and especially 
the text of Acts, with the result that " the Bezan Greek 
is moulded on a Syrian text," a conclusion which 
seemed to disprove the theory of Latinisation. 1 In 
his study, Professor Chase was led to assume the 



F. H. Chase, The Old Syriac Element in Codex Bezce, 1893. 



CODEX BEZJE 



163 



existence of an old Syriac text of the Acts, of which 
Hort had said, twelve years previously, "Nothing as 
yet is known " (Introduction, 85). Professor Harris, 
in a review of Professor Chase's book, thinks he has 
removed the hypothesis of an old Syriac text of Acts 
into the region of fact (an opinion which seems to 
have been confirmed by the discovery of Mrs. Lewis), 
but does not feel himself compelled to give up the 
theory of Latinisation. 1 

Probably no one theory explains all the variations 
in the text of the Codex. The Latinisation theory 
may explain some, the Syriacisation theory others ; 
while the usual theory that the Latin has been ad- 
justed to the Greek may explain still others. It can- 
not be said that the Codex represents the only pure 
text, as Bornemann, 2 nor that it is the most depraved 
text, as Burgon. 3 At all events, the relation of Codex 
Bezae to the Old Latin and Old Syriac texts seems to 
have been established. 

3. Theory of Jewish-Christian Origin. — Dr. Kesch is 
in search of an original Gospel in Hebrew. He is in- 
terested in every possible genuine "agraphon," any 
Hebraising text which may point to an original He- 
brew text, and any variants in the Gospel texts or in 
the citations of the Fathers. The variants, therefore, 
in the Gospels of Codex Bezae and its Western rela- 
tives are of immense importance to him. He holds 
with Credner the theory of the Jewish-Christian origin 
of the Codex Bezae, though, unlike Credner, he recog- 
nises its relation to the Old Latin and Old Syriac texts, 
and, like Professor Harris, holds that a primitive bi- 
lingual existed before the time of Tatian. The " un- 

1 See Hackmann on Chase, Theol. Lit*., 1894; col. 604-609. 
Harris, Four Lectures, etc., 14 ff. 

2 Acta Apostolorum, etc., I, 1848. 
8 Revision Revised, 12. 



No one 
theory ex- 
plains all 
the varia- 
tions. 



3. Resch's 
and Cred- 
ner's theory 
of Jewish- 
Christian 
origin. 



164 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Luke. 



known authority " of Credner, which lies at the back of 
the Western text as one of its sources, is identified 
by Eesch with a secondary translation of the original 
Hebrew Gospel. The "great unknown" of Credner, 
Professor Bousset thinks, has a good deal of the ghost 
in it. Dr. Besch's theory has met with little accept- 
ance among scholars. Professor Harris does not think 
the theory impossible, but notes that the palaeo- 
graphical facts are against it. Professor Bopes, in his 
review of Besch's Agrapha, feels certain that the 
theory of Jewish-Christian origin has been conclu- 
sively refuted. 1 
4. Blass's 4. Theory of Two Editions of Acts and Lake. — To be 

t\ro editions cons id ere( l more at length is the theory of the philolo- 
of Acts and gist, Professor Priedrich Blass of Halle, first published 
in an article entitled Twofold Tradition of the Text in 
Acts (1894), and in its latest form extended now to 
the Gospel of Luke (1897). The reader is referred 
especially to the Praefatio in his Evangelium secun- 
dum Lucam (1897), although there is some additional 
material in his Philology of the Gospels (1898). Pro- 
fessor Blass has written extensively in support of 
his theory, confining his attention at first to the double 
form of the text in Acts. His theory, as first stated, 
is that Luke issued two copies, a rough draft, repre- 
sented by the Western text, and the corrected and less 
prolix copy, represented by the usual text. The former 

1 See A. Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den 
Evangelien, 1893-96 (Texte und Untersuchungen, X, 1-4). 
K. A. Credner, Beitrdge zur Einleitung in die biblischen 
Schriften, 1832, I, 452-518. J. R. Harris, Four Lectures, etc., 
4 ; 1-13. W. Bousset, Die Evangeliencitate Justins des 3far- 
tyrers, 1891, S. 7. Paul Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evan- 
gelienfrage u. s. iv., 1890, holds to Credner's theory. J. H. 
Ropes, Die Spruche Jesu, 1896, a careful sifting of Resch's 
Agrapha. Also review by him and Professor Torrey in Ameri- 
can Journal of Theology, April, 1899. 



CODEX BEZM 165 

was designed for Boman readers, the latter for The- 
ophilus. 1 

The theory of two editions is not new. Joannes The two- 
Clericus, in the last century, was almost of the opinion theory not 
that Luke edited the Acts twice (Acta Apostolorum, new - Cieri- 
ed. Minor, III. Eeference to Clericus or Hemsterhuis Lightfoot.' 
not exact). Hort also had thought that " the purely 
documentary phenomena (were) compatible with the 
supposition that the Western and the non-Western texts 
started respectively from a first and a second edition 
of the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic " (Introduc- 
tion, 177), but dismisses the theory on internal grounds. 
Lightfoot also had suggested that " the Evangelist him- 
self might have issued two separate editions w of his 
Gospel and also of the Acts. 2 Professor Zahn also, 
in the winter of 1885-86, had come to the opinion that 
the Bezan text of Acts represents " either the rough 
draft of the author before publication, or the copy 

1 The Philology of the Gospels is a dilution of his admira- 
ble preface to Luke, adapted to English readers who do not 
read Latin. Professor C. K. Gregory, in a review of the book 
(American Journal of Theology, October, 1898, 881), calls it a 
series of "rambling observations." The title " Philology " is 
certainly misleading, as is that of " Gospels." 

For convenience, the following list of Professor Blass's writ- 
ings on the subject is appended : — 

Stud. u. Krit. 1894, S. 86-120, " Die Zweifache Textuberliefer- 
ung in der Apostelgeschichte." Neue kirchliche Zeitschr. 1895, 
S. 712-725, "Ueber die verschiedenen Textesformen in den 
Schriften des Lucas." Hermathena, 1895, 121-143 (IX, No. 31), 
"De duplici forma Actorum Lucse." Acta Apostolorum, Edi- 
tio Philologica, 1895. Stud. u. Krit. 1896, S. 436-471, "Neue 
Texteszeugen fur die Apostelgeschichte." Ibid., S. 733 ff. (on 
Luke 22:15 ff.). Acta Apostolorum (ed. Minor), 1896. Her- 
mathena, 1896, 291 ff., "De Yariis Formis EvangeHi Lucani." 
Evangelium secundum Lucam, 1897. Philology of the Gospels, 
1898. 

2 Fresh Bevision of the English New Testament, 1873, 43. 



166 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



(Handexemplar) belonging to the author, along with 
supplementary marginal notes." l But Blass deserves 
whatever credit there is in the theory. At first, as has 
been noted, Blass spoke of " rough draft" and "cor- 
rected copy." The Western text corresponded with 
the former, and the usual text with the latter. When, 
however, he applied the hypothesis to the Gospel of 
Luke, he found that the Western text of Luke corre- 
sponded with the corrected copy, while the usual text 
corresponded with the rough draft ; or, in a word, that 
the text-phenomena in Acts and in Luke were dissimi- 
lar (Evang. Luc, Y ff. Acta, ed. Minor, V., Philology, 
Blass forced etc., 103). An amendment to the theory became nec- 
origkfaT* hlS essai T- The theory as amended " requires merely one 
theory. older copy and one more recent." 2 The more recent 

copy is abridged, the work "becoming somewhat tedious 
for the author, or at least losing something of its fresh- 
ness for him, so that he was naturally disposed to 
omit many unessential circumstances and details which 
he formerly had given." 3 The curious result is that 
the abridged edition of the Gospel is represented by 
the Western text, that of Acts by the non-Western 
text. Theophilus gets an unabridged edition of the 
Gospel, and an abridged edition of Acts ; while the 
readers in Eome get an abridged edition of the Gospel 
and an unabridged edition of Acts. Both seem to 
have been content with the arrangement. In support 
of the theory for Acts, Blass urges (1) that the lan- 
guage of the additions and variants of the Western 
text is Lucan, and (2) that the additions themselves 
are possible only to a contemporary, that is, to the 
author himself. 4 At this point Blass remarks that it 
is easier to test the insertions of the Western (or as he 

1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Bd. II, 1899, S. 338- 
359. Compare S. 348. 

2 Philology, 126. * Ibid., 104. 4 Ibid., 113 ff., 119 ff. 



CODEX BEZM 



167 



Theory of 
two editions 
more easily- 
defended in 
Acts than in 
Luke's 



prefers to call it, Eoman) text of Acts than to test the 
omissions of the Western text of the Gospel, and, 
hence, that it is easier to defend the theory of two edi- 
tions in the case of Acts than in the case of Luke. 1 
In applying his theory to the Gospel, he notes the 
difficulty of restoring the Western text. Conflations 
and assimilations are more prevalent in the Synoptic Gospel. 
Gospels than elsewhere, and so therefore in Luke. 
The pure Western text of the Latin palimpsest of 
Fleury and the Greek Codex Laudianus are unavail- 
able for Luke. Justin Martyr cannot be used. The 
texts, therefore, upon which he must rely — the Old 
Latin and Syriac Versions, Tatian, Marcion, the Ferrar- 
Group — represent a mixed type of text, that is, give 
us a mixture of the Western or Eoman and the non- 
Western or Antiochian. Thus we are left largely to 
the Greek of Codex Bezae for a relatively unmixed 
Western text. In Acts, the characteristic of the Bezan 
text is its additions ; in Luke, however, it is its omis- 
sions. 2 

In Luke's Gospel, then, Blass begins with the omis- 
sions, and selects as test cases 8 : 43 ; 10 : 41 ; 12 : 19 ; 
19 : 29 ; and concludes that the abridgments cannot 
be explained away as spurious, and that, therefore, as 
genuine, they are evidence of two editions. Coming 
next to the relatively few cases of insertion, he treats 
first the story of the man working on the Sabbath 
(6 : 5), and notes that it has a genuine ring, although 
indeed no Church Father records this tradition. 3 The 
reason that Luke omitted the story in his edition for 
Theophilus was, that it might give offence to Christian 
Jews, while the Eoman readers would find in the nar- 

1 Philology, 103, 144. 

2 On the Ferrar-Group, see J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin 
of the Ferrar-Group, 1893. 

8 See Ropes, Die Sprilche Jesu, S. 124-126. 



168 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



John 7 : 53- 
8: 11 attrib- 
uted to 
Luke. 



Reception of 
Blass' s 
theory. 



rative no occasion of stumbling. 1 Similarly, the Per- 
rar-G-roup attributes the section about the woman 
taken in adultery (John 7 : 53-8 : 11) to Luke, insert- 
ing it after Luke 2JL : 38. Blass, however, thinks the 
section should be put two verses earlier, and after 
some further conjectures notes that the language of 
the section is Lucan. The reason that Luke omitted 
in his copy for Theophilus, and inserted in the copy 
for Kome, is precisely the same as in the former case. 
It is evident, however, that Blass is not so confident 
either of his restoration of the text, or of his theory 
of two editions in the case of the Gospel, as he is in the 
case of Acts. He admits that the text phenomena in 
Luke are not easily solvable, and says he is " very far 
from pretending this solution to be, as it were, a key 
which unlocks all doors." 2 

The theory attracted the attention of scholars imme- 
diately, and has found favour in the eyes of several 
critics, as Nestle, Belser, and Salmon. This consent 
may be due, as Bousset suggests, to apologetic inter- 
ests. Zockler and Zahn were inclined to approve it for 
Acts, though not for the Gospel. On the other hand, 
the theory was contested by other scholars. Corssen, 
for instance, has attempted to show the un-Lucan 
character of the Soman text, and Ramsay thinks the 
text has " a fatal smoothness : it loses the rather harsh 
but very individual style of Luke, and it neglects some 
of the literary forms that Luke observed." It gives 
a mixed but valuable second-century text, shows a 
second-century interpretation of various passages, and 
adds several good bits of information, though they 
were not written by Luke, except perhaps in a few 
cases (Expositor, 1897, 469). 3 

i Evang. Luc, XLVI-XLVII. 2 Philology, 168. 

3 See Blass, Prcefatio in Lucam, where he meets some of the 
objections. E. Nestle, Einfuhrung in das Griechische Neue 



CODEX BEZM 169 

5. Theory of Bernhard Weiss. — There is no sturdier Blass's 
opponent of the theory of Blass than Professor Weiss posedby P ~ 
of Berlin. In his study of the Bezan text he does not B - Weiss, 
propose to examine the hypothesis of two editions 
as such, but rather to determine whether the Western 
text of Acts is earlier or later than that of the ancient 
majuscules. His theory is that the Western text has 
almost no authority whatever. In emphasising, there- 
fore, the almost complete worthlessness of the Western 
text, he tacitly endeavours to shatter the hypothesis 
of Blass. Looking carefully at all negative instances, 
and weighing the evidence of the majority of the 
variants, Weiss obtains antecedent probability against 
the genuineness of the Western readings. The usual 
corruptions in D are no more peculiar to D than to 
other codices. Moreover, there is a motive discernible 
in the recasting of the text, namely, to change pur- 
posely the older majuscules. Xow of two texts, the 
one which is more easily explained from the other is 
secondary. Thus B, far from having variants which 
are Lucan, is rather a " reflektierte iSTachbesserung" 
of the older majuscules. The Western and non- 

Testament," S. 100, 101. J. Belser (R. C), Beitrdge zar Er- 
klarung der Apostelgeschichte, 1897. G. Salmon, Introduction 
to the New Testament, 1897, 592 ff. Ibid. , Some Thoughts on 
the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1897. W. Bous- 
set, Theologische Bundschau, 1898, 1, 413. O. Zockler, Studia 
Gryphisicaldensia, 1895, S. 132 ff. The. Zahn, Einleitung in 
das Neue Testament, 1899, II, S. 338 ff., 346. 0. Zockler, Be- 
v:eis des Glaubens, 1898, S. 28-35. Corssen, Gott. gel. Anz. 
1896, S. 425 ff. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the 
Boman Citizen, 3d ed., 1897, 25. Ibid., The Church in the 
Roman Empire, 3d ed., 1894, 151-165. Also Expositor, 1895, 
129 m, 212 m ; 1897, 460-471. 

Against Blass see also Julicher, Einleitung in das Neue Tes- 
tament, 1894, S. 271. H. Holtzmann, Th. Litz., 1896, No. 3; 
1898, col. 535-539. W. Bousset, Theologische Rundschau, 1898, 
I. 406-416. 



1T0 



TEXTUAL CBITICISM 



The Western 
and non- 
Western 
texts not in- 
dependent 
witnesses. 



Summary of 
objections to 
Blass's 
theory. 



Western texts are not independent witnesses: the 
former depends upon the latter. The changes, to be 
sure, are early, arising long before the canonisation of 
Acts. They do not appear, with slight exceptions, in 
the speeches of Acts. " Nowhere in the matter of the 
text is anything essentially changed, or a new point 
added in reference to the movements of the history." 
The changes themselves are not uniform in character. 
Some are unique, most are akin to the changes com- 
mon to all texts. The Western readings therefore 
have no independent authority whatever, and can 
certainly not be attributed to one hand as the Blass 
theory requires. 1 

The objections to the theory of Blass may be 
summed up as follows: (1) Its simplicity is really 
an argument against it. Phenomena so complex de- 
mand a more complex solvent than is furnished by a 
single hypothesis. (2) The uniform character of the 
variants demanded by the hypothesis is made d, priori 
unlikely by the striking dissimilarity of the Western 
text of Acts from that of Luke. Moreover, Blass has 
not proved the uniform character of the variants. (3) 
The motive assigned for the omission in the copy for 
Theophilus and the insertion in the copy for Eoman 
readers of such sections as that of the man working on 
the Sabbath, or of the woman taken in adultery, — the 
motive, namely, that the Jewish Christians would be 
offended, — cannot be taken seriously. Why are not 
other uncomfortable words of Jesus about the law 
omitted in the copy for Theophilus ? (4) The motive 
likewise for abridging one copy each of the Gospel 
and of Acts, namely, that the author found his work 
tedious, cannot be considered a serious argument. (5) 

1 See B. Weiss, u Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte, 
1897, Texte unci Untersuchungen, XVII. Compare " Die Apos- 
telgeschichte," 1893, Texte unci Untersuchungen, IX, 3, 4. 



CODEX BEZJE 171 

The text-phenomena of Luke do not require the two- 
edition hypothesis, any more than those of Mark or 
Matthew or John. Starting with the variants of 
Luke, and then passing over to Acts, even these 
unique readings in Acts may be explained on other 
grounds more successfully. (6) The great fault is the 
neglect of negative instances. Instead of starting with 
a few brilliant readings, he should have begun with 
the great majority of ordinary readings. The analogy 
of the phenomena of the Western text as a whole 
should have been the basis of the opinion on a few 
brilliant readings in the Bezan text of Acts. Blass 
should have given a careful and systematic study to 
the Western texts as a whole, before asserting his 
theory on the basis chiefly of one codex. 

6. Theory of Westcott and Hort. — Westcott and Hort 
think that Tischendorf, under the influence of the 
Sinaiticus, and without definite principles, has ad- 
mitted too many Western readings into his editions. 
They feel that these readings, when confronted with 
their rivals, generate a sense of distrust, which dis- 
trust is but increased upon further and intimate ac- 
quaintance. To be sure, Codex Bez^e, more clearly 
than any other extant Greek manuscript, reveals a 
type of text most widely read in the third, and prob- 
ably in the second century; but, they bid us notice, 
antiquity and purity are not synonymous terms. The 
tendency of the Western texts is toward fulness, con- 
flation, in which tendency they stand unrivalled. The 
motive in all this is apparent. It is hard, however, to 
explain omissions in a type of text whose character- 
istic is fulness. In comparing the non-Western texts 
with the Western texts at the points where the latter 
omit and the former retain, we are led to the hypothe- 
sis that what are omissions in these Western texts are 
interpolations in the usually trustworthy non-Western 



172 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Westcott 
and Hort 
midway be- 
tween Blass 
and Weiss 
in estimate 
of the 
Western 
text. 



Professor 
Salmon. A 
text at Rome 
differing 
from the 
Alexan- 
drian. 



texts. Thus only one class of phenomena in the 
Western readings can claim attention, namely, the 
omissions, or, more correctly, the non-interpolations. 
The theory of Westcott and Hort is the theory of 
Western non-interpolations. They therefore stand 
midway between Weiss and Blass in their estimate of 
the Western type of text. But have they given suf- 
ficient prominence to Western readings ? On their 
principle, a small handful of Western authorities 
may, at times, overthrow the combined authority of 
B and X, while, at other times, B holds the field alone 
against the combined armies of West and East. This 
difficulty has led to the warning against a " Westcott 
and Hort ab omnibus receptus." 

7. Theory of Professor Salmon. — The Dublin scholar 
thinks that Westcott and Hort have given us the text 
as read in Alexandria, probably in the third century, 
and possibly before the end of the second. But there 
existed at the same time in Eome a text which differed 
in some respects from the Alexandrian text. The 
trouble with Dr. Hort is that he does not admit the 
possibility of an independent Western tradition. 1 It 
would seem as if he were under the influence of a pre- 
conceived theory as to the existence of original auto- 
graphs. But suppose there are editors at work in the 
Synoptic Gospels. Can we speak of the individual 
writings of the individual authors in the light of the 
traces of the secondary character, say of the First Gos- 
pel ? 2 The textual critic must take into account the 
Synoptic Problem. And further, suppose, with Blass, 
that there are two editions of the Third Gospel and 
the Acts. Which is the original autograph ? " If we 
desire a text absolutely free from ambiguity, we desire 
what God has never been pleased to give His church." 3 

1 Some Thoughts, etc., 56. 2 Ibid., etc., 105. 

3 Ibid., etc., 130. 



CODEX BEZM 



173 



Coming now to the theory of Blass, Dr. Salmon 
points out the fact that the documentary evidence is 
too late to give us " authentic information as to the 
circumstances of their first publication." 1 There is, 
therefore, no " external evidence enabling us either to Hypothesis 
confirm or to reject the hypothesis of a double edition." edition to^e 



Internal evidence must decide. 2 Now, although the 
reconstruction of the Western text given by Blass does 
not commend itself in toto to Salmon, there are, never- 
theless, some variations which rest upon the authority 
of Luke. 3 Blass has made out a good case for Acts, 4 
and probably a similar hypothesis would cover the 
facts in the Gospel. But the dissimilarity of the text- 
phenomena in the Gospel and in Acts, and the inherent 
difficulties in the text of the Gospels, arising from 
early conformations, make an alternative theory to 
that of Blass more probable for the Gospel, namely, 
that explanatory readings were given by Luke in 
Borne and were preserved in the West. There was, 
however, no definite written text ; otherwise we could 
reproduce it now. Rather the explanatory readings 
are added to the Alexandrian text as of coordinate and 
equal authority, since there was no theory of verbal 
inspiration to molest or to make afraid. 5 Thus the 
Rpman text differs from the Alexandrian as a second 
edition of a book differs from the first. 6 At all events, 
the Western variations are not the licentious additions 
of audacious scribes, but many of them represent the 
form in which the Gospel was read in the church of 
Rome in apostolic or subapostolic times. 7 

The objective summary of recent opinion upon Codex 

1 Some Thoughts, etc., 134. * Ibid, etc., 139. 

2 Compare Hort, Introduction, 177. 5 Ibid., etc.. 147-151. 
8 Some Thoughts, etc., 137. 6 Ibid., etc., 158. 

7 Ibid., etc., 151. See also G. Salmon's Introduc- 

tion to the New Testament, 8th ed., 1897, 692 ff, 



decided by 
internal evi- 
dence only. 



174 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Professor 
Harris on 
the Bezan 
text. 



Bezae and its relatives attempted above will, I think, 
enable the reader to appreciate the suggestive remark 
of Professor Harris, with which I conclude the sketch. 
" The more we think of it, the more complex does the 
Bezan text become. It has passed through the hands 
of a number of people of active mind, whose remarks 
are stratified in the Western text : they are not all of 
them Syrians, and it is not yet even proved that there 
are no Western expansions which are original. The 
whole history of the text requires renewed and careful 
inquisition, without prejudice in favour of the solvent 
power of a single hypothesis." l 



Review of 

the history 
of Textual 
Criticism of 
the New 
Testament. 



A real 
advance. 



In reviewing the history of Textual Criticism of the 
New Testament we have marked, in the beginning, the 
superstitious reverence for the text which opposed 
all attempts to investigate or amend it; but, with a 
strange inconsistency, attached itself, not to the Greek 
Original, but to its Latin representative. We have 
marked the transference of the same superstition to a 
Greek text based upon a few late and inferior manu- 
scripts, and invested with a factitious authority through 
the audacity of a clever publisher. We have marked 
the slow process of unseating this textual idol, the reso- 
lute assertion by scholars of the authority of the most 
ancient witnesses, and the efforts to bring the New 
Testament text into accordance with their testimony. 
We have marked the formulation of textual principles 
and the development of critical methods. 

There has been a great and real advance. It has 
come to be accepted that Scripture is not a fetich, but 
is fairly open, like other literary productions, to the 
same critical tests which are applied to other litera- 
ture, and that such criticism, so far from implying 
irreverence, is one of the highest marks of respect that 
can be shown toward the Bible. 

1 Four Lectures, etc., 89. 



GENERAL REVIEW 



175 



Much still to 
be done. 



The Textus Receptus has been remanded to its 
proper place as a historical monument, and has been 
summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text. 

In weighing the evidence for readings, the emphasis 
has been shifted from the number to the quality of 
manuscripts. In other words, it is an accepted princi- 
ple that manuscripts are to be weighed and not counted. 

It is recognised that every class of textual facts is 
to be taken into account ; that internal evidence is to 
be subordinated to external evidence, and that conclu- 
sions as to the character and relative importance of 
manuscripts are to be reached by a study of their 
affinities ; in other words, by the application of the 
genealogical method. 

Still, much remains to be done. " Whoever should 
conclude," says Dr. Nestle, "that New Testament 
criticism has reached its goal, would greatly err. As 
the archaeologist in Olympia or Delphi exhumes the 
shattered temples, and essays to recombine the frag- 
ments in their ancient splendour, so, much labour is still 
needed before all the stones shall have been collected, 
and the sanctuary of the New Testament writings re- 
stored to its original form." 

The noble work of Westcott and Hort, by its wide The work of 
range, its laborious research and its boldness, has com- an ^ S Hort 
manded a large measure of assent, but it cannot be not final, 
said to be decisive, even as the consensus respecting it 
is by no means universal. There is some danger of 
Westcott and Hort's text coming to be regarded as a 
second Textus Receptus. It has taken time to grasp 
their principles and method. Professor Salmon justly 
remarks that "the foundations of their system are 
buried out of sight of ordinary readers of their work. 
Their theories are based on immense inductions, in the 
course of which they must, with enormous labour, have 
tabulated comparative lists of the peculiarities of 



176 



TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



Results from 
studies of D 
not final. 



Activity of 
special 
scholarship 
and archae- 
ological re- 
search. 



manuscripts or groups of manuscripts." Eighteen 
years, however, have enabled critics to digest, and to 
apprehend their processes and conclusions as a whole, 
with the result of calling forth more than one ringing 
challenge. Their theory of the double recension of the 
text in the middle of the third century, their genea- 
logical nomenclature, and their too exclusive reliance 
upon the testimony of B and & are alike the subjects 
of incisive criticism. 

The results evolved from the special studies of Codex 
Bezae are alike suggestive and promising, but cannot 
be accepted as final. 

With gratitude for the substantial gains, both in 
material and in method, since the appearance of Eras- 
mus's first edition, we must still be content to wait. 
Meanwhile, accurate special scholarship is busy in 
testing the old positions, exposing weak points, or de- 
tecting fresh confirmations. Archaeological research 
is diligent, and such discoveries as the Gospel of Peter, 
the Lewis palimpsest, and the Oxyrhynchus fragments 
afford promises and prophecies of other discoveries 
which may lead the student nearer to the primitive 
sources of New Testament Scripture, and settle many 
questions which are still in dispute. 

Toward one result the course of textual criticism 
appears to be slowly but surely moving — the modifica- 
tion and, in part, the abandonment of the idea of origi- 
nal autographs as an object of search. Whether the 
theory of the double editions of Acts and Luke be vin- 
dicated or not, whatever may be the final decision con- 
cerning the documents represented in Acts, enough 
has been developed to make it evident that different 
forms of a New Testament document may be due to 
the author himself, and that editorship may have en- 
larged, modified, or changed the form in which the 
document originally came from the author's pen. 



APPENDIX 

The following list is added of books of reference 

not elsewhere mentioned. 

Palaeography 

V. Gardthausen : Griechische Palaeographie. Leipzig, 1879. 
Fried. Blass : Palaeographie, Bucherwesen und Handschriften- 

kunde. In Miiller, Handbuch der Mass. Alter thumswiss en- 

schaft. 2 Ausg. Bd. I. Miinchen, 1892. 
W. Wattenbach : Anleitung zur griech. Palaeographie. 2 Ausg. 

Leipzig, 1877. 
Ibid. : Scriptures Grcecce Specimina. Berlin, 1883. 
Ibid, and A. von Velsen : Exempla Codicwn Grcecorum litt. 

minusc. scriptorum. Heidelberg, 1878. Fol. 50 plates. 
Ibid. : Schriftiafeln zur Geschichte der Griechischen Schrift. 

1877. 
E. A. Bond and E. M. Thompson : Facsimiles of Ancient 

Manuscripts. Palseographical Society of London, 1873-82. 
T. W. Allen: Notes on Abbreviations in Greek Manuscripts. 

With facsimiles. Oxford, 1889. 
W. A. Copinger: The Bible and its Transmission. With 28 

facsimiles. London, 1897. 

Autographs 

J. R. Harris: New Testament Autographs. Supplement to 
American Journal of Philology, No. 12. Baltimore, 1882. 

Critical Editions of the Greek Testament 

C. Tischendorf : Novum Testamentum Greece. Editio Octava 
Critica Major. 3 vols. Prolegomena, IH, by C. R. 
Gregory. Leipzig, 1869-94. 

A small edition of the text of the 8th ed. with a selection 
of readings, 1878. 

n 177 



178 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

Ed. by O. von Gebhardt, with variants of Tregelles and 
Westcott and Hort. 5th ed. 1891. 

B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort : The New Testament in the 
Original Greek. 2 vols. American edition, with an Intro- 
duction by Philip ScharL New York. 3d ed. 1883. 

E. Palmer : The Greek Testament with the Readings adopted 
by the Revisers of the Authorised Version, and with Refer- 
ences in the Margin to Parallel Passages of the Old and New 
Testament. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1882. Very hand- 
some typography. An edition in smaller type, with a 
wide margin for notes. 

F. H. A. Scrivener : Novum Testamentum. Textus Stephanici. 
With various readings of Beza, the Elzevirs, Lachmann, 
Teschendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the re- 
visers. Cambridge and London, 1887. New readings at 
the foot of the page, and the displaced readings of the 
text in heavier type. 

W. Sanday : Lloyd's edition of Mill's text, with parallel ref- 
erences, Eusebian Canons, etc., and three Appendices 
(published separately), containing variants of Westcott 
and Hort, and a selection of important readings with 
authorities, together with readings from Oriental Ver- 
sions, Memphitic, Armenian, and Ethiopic. Oxford, 1889. 

R. F. Weymouth : The Resultant Greek Testament. Readings 
of Stephen (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Lightfoot, and 
(for the Pauline Epistles) Ellicott. Also of Alford and 
Weiss for Matthew, the Basle edition, Westcott and Hort, 
and the revisers. London, 1892. 

J. Baljon : Novum Testamentum Greece prcesertim in usum stu- 
diosorum. Groningse, 1898. W. Bousset (Theologische 
Rundschau, July, 1898, S. 416) characterises it as often a 
bad, inaccurate, unsystematic excerpt from Tischendorf's 
8thMaj. The readings of Persian, Ethiopic, and Armenian 
Versions are untrustworthy, even in Tischendorf . 

E. Nestle : Testamentum Novum Greece cum Apparatu Critico. 
Stuttgart, 1898. Will not save the use of editions with 
the manuscript variants. 

F. Schjott: Novum Testamentum Greece adfdem Testium Ve- 
tustissimorum cognovit. Adds various readings from the 
Elzevirs and Tischendorf. 



APPENDIX 179 

Fried. Blass : Acta Apostolorum give Lucce ad Theophilum Liber 
Alter secundum formam qua, videtur Romanam. Leipzig, 
1896. 

Ibid. : Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucas ad Theophilum 
Liber Prior secundum Formam quce videtur Romanam. Leip- 
zig, 1897. 

Convenient Manuals 

Eb. Nestle: Einfuhrung in das griechische Neue Testament, 
Gottingen, 1897. 

C. E. Hammond : Outlines of Textual Criticism applied to the 
New Testament. 5th rev. ed. Oxford, 1890. 

F. G. Kenyon : Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. 3d 
ed. London, 1897. 

P. Schaff : A Companion to the Greek Testament and the Eng- 
lish Version. 3d rev. ed. New York, 1888. 

B. B. Warfield : An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of 
the New Testament. New York, 1887. 

E. C. Mitchell: The Critical Handbook of the Greek New Tes- 
tament. New edition. New York, 1896. Useful catalogue 
of manuscripts. 

A catalogue of editions of the Greek Testament, 
prepared by the late Dr. Isaac H. Hall, may be found 
in SchafPs Companion. 



INDEX 



Abbot, Ezra, 12, 57, 120, 123 
143 

Accents, 8, 19 

Achelis, H., 41 

Adler, J. G. C, 98 

Alcala, 49, 50 

Aldus Manutius, 48, 53 

Alford, H., 138 

Alter, F. K., 98 

Ambrose, 40 

Ammonian sections, 9, 10, 21 ; 

Ammonius, 9, 10 

Apostolic Fathers, 38 

Aristion, 35 

Athos, Mt., 97, 136 

Augusti, 104 

Autographs, 2, 3, 4, 77, 176 

Baethgen, 33 
Barberini readings, 67 
Barnabas, Epistle of, 16, 17 
Bartolocci, 130 
Bebb, L.J. M.,41 
Belser, J., 168, 169 
Bengel, J. A., 76, 87-89, 90 
Bensley, R. L., 31, 33 
Bentley, Richard, 69, 70, 139 

Proposals of, 70-75 
Berger, S., 28 
Berlin Academy, 37 
Bertheau, C, 93, 129 
Beza, Theo., 58, 63, 158 
Birch, A., 98, 130 
Blass, F., 159, 164-168 
Bloomfield, S. T., 115 
Bodleian Library, 23, 34 
Bonwetsch, G., 41 
Bosworth and Waring, 35 



129, 



,22 



Bousset, W., 164, 169 

Breathings, 8, 19 

Briggs, C. A., 159 

British Museum, 14, 19, 28, 34 

British and Foreign Bible Soci- 
ety, 23 

Burgon, J. W., 41, 61, 119-121, 
137, 141, 142, 152, 158 

Burk, P. D., 89, 90 

Burkitt, F. C, 27, 31, 33 



Cambridge University Library, 

22 
Canons of Criticism 

Bengel, 88 

Griesbach, 102 

Lachmann, 112 

Scrivener, 141 

Tischendorf, 125-129 

TregeUes, 132-134 
Capitals in manuscripts, 20 
Chapters, division into, 12 
Chase, F. H., 162 
Christian VII., 98 
Chrysostom, 148, 149 
Clement of Rome, Epistle of, 20, 

38 
Clement of Alexandria, 37, 41, 

148, 161 
Clericus, J., 165. 
Codices 

Alexandrinus, 11, 19, 64 

Amiatinus, 114, 131, 135 

Basilianus, 14, 135 

Bezse, 14, 22, 62, 157-174, 176 

Boernerianus, 99 

Borgianus, 23 

Claromontanus, 14, 22 
181 



182 



INDEX 



Codices, 

Colbertinus, 136 

Dublinensis, 23 

Ephraemi, 15, 21 

Friderico Augustanus, 117 

Fuldensis, 113 

Laudianus, 22, 167 

Monacensis, 135 

Montfortianus, 54, 65 

Mutinensis, 135 

Nanii, 135 

Regius, 23 

Rhodiensis, 49 

Sangallensis, 23 

Sinaiticus, 16, 117-121, 138 

Vaticanus, 18, 71, 130, 138, 141 

Zacynthius, 23, 136 
Colinaeus, S., 55 
Comparative Criticism, 132 
Complutensian Bible, 49 
Conflation, 147, 160, 167 
Cook, F. C, 116, 121 
Coptic Language, 34 
Corssen, 169 
Cozza, 19 

Credner, K. A., 163, 164 
Curcellaeus, S., 66 
Cureton, 28 
Curetonian Syriac Version, 28, 

29, 32 
Cursive manuscripts, 12, 13, 14 
Cyprian, 41, 161 
Cyril of Alexandria, 148 

Damasus, Pope, 26 
Davidson, S., 116 
Deissmann, G. A., 128 
Delitzsch, F, 51, 53, 55 
Didymus of Alexandria, 148 
Diodorus of Antioch, 148 
Dionysius of Alexandria, 148 
Dobbin, O. T., 55 
Documents, 

Age of, 83 

Classification of, 70, 85, 125 

Genealogy of, 86 
Ace. to Bengel, 89 
Ace. to Griesbach, 101 



Documents, genealogy of, 

Ace. to Lachmann, 111, 112 
Ace. to Scholz, 107 
Ace. to Semler, 93 
Ace. to Tischendorf , 123 
Ace. to Westcott and Hort, 
147 
Homogeneity of, 85 
Studied as wholes, 82, 84, 85 
Doedes, J. I., 116 
Dublin, Trinity College Library, 
23,54 

Eadie, J., 59 
Eichhorn, J. G., 105 
Elzevirs, 60 
Epiphanius, 43 
Erasmus, 48-55 
Errors, textual, 4, 5, 81 
Eusebius, 10, 11, 41 

Canons of, 10, 11, 12, 17, 21, 22 
Euthalius, 9, 12 
Ewald, P., 164 

Fell, J., 67, 69 
Ferrar-group, 167, 168 
Fleck, 135 
Frame, J. E., 157 
Fritzsche, D. F., 28, 47 
Froben, 51, 53 
Froude, J. A., 55 

Gardthausen, V., 121 

Gelasius I., 45, 105 

Geneva Bible, 58 

Gerhard von Maestricht, 69, 90 

German Bible, 47 

Goetze, I. M., 51 

Green, T. S., 143 

Gregory, C. R., 16, 75, 109, 115, 

116, 131, 139, 144, 165 
Griesbach, J. J., 96, 99-104, 162 
Grotius, Hugo, 60, 63 
Groups of New Testament Books, 

14 
Gwilliam, G. H., 33, 34 

Hagenbach, C. R., 93 
Hahn, 104, 115 



INDEX 



183 



Hall, I. H., 33 

Hammond, C. E., 5 

Harmonies of the Gospels, 9 

Harnack, A., 33 

Harris, J. R., 12, 30, 31, 32, 33, 

34, 55, 66, 121, 162, 163, 164, 

174 
Harwood, E.,96 
Hefele, C. I., 51 
Hermas, " Pastor " of, 16, 17 
Hesychius, 44, 105, 123 
Hill, J. H., 33, 45 
Hippolytus, 41, 148 
Hodgkin, T.,35 
Holtzmann, H., 169 
Home, T. H., 115 
Hort, F. J. A., 7, 23, 55, 104, 154, 

158, 161, 165 
Hoskier, H. C, 55, 58, 62 
Hug, J. L., 44, 105 
Hugo, Cardinal, 12 

Ignatius, 38 

Inspiration, 3 

Intrinsic probability, 78, 79, 81, 

83,84 
Irenseus, 39, 41, 43, 148, 158, 161 

Jerome, 26, 41, 44, 45, 105, 113, 114 

Jiilicher, A., 169 

Justin Martyr, 37, 41, 148, 161, 167 

Kelly, W., 143 
Kennedy, B. H., 144 
Kennedy, H. A. A., 128 
Kecp&XaLa, 12, 18, 21, 22 
Kipling, T., 99, 159 
Knapp, 104 
Kolvt] %k5o<tis, 105 

Lachmann, C, 110-115 
Langton, S., 12 
Laurence, R., 104 
Laurentian Library, 114 
Lectionaries, 15 
Le Degeorge, 59 
Lee, Ed., 53 
Leo X., 48, 50 



Lewis, Mrs. A., 29-31, 34 
Lightfoot, J. B., 35, 165 
Lucar, Cyril, 20, 64 
Lucas Brugensis, 59, 63 
Lucian of Antioch, 44, 105, 123 

Mace, W., 75 
Mai, Cardinal, 19 
Manuscripts, 8-23 
Marcion, 39, 43, 161, 167 
Marker, 104 

Matthaei, C. F., 96, 97, 99, 136 
Mazarin Bible, 47 
McClellan, J. B., 143 
Methodius, 148 
Mico, 130 
Middleton, C, 74 
Mill, J., 6,67, 68, 162 
Miller, E., 61, 140 
Mitchell, E. C, 41 
Moldenhauer, D. G.,98, 99 
Monk, J. H., 69, 75 
Mont anus, B., 59 
Muralt, E. de, 116 

Nestle, Eb., 6, 32, 36, 55, 59, 75, 

90, 159, 168, 175 
Nicoll, W. R., 62 
Norton, A., 116 

Origen, 39, 41, 44, 105, 123, 148, 

149, 161 
Owen, J., 66 
Oxyrhyncus fragments, 176 

Palimpsests, 15, 21, 23, 29, 32, 176 

Palmer, E., 155 

Paris, National Library of, 15, 21, 

22,23 
Patristic quotations, 36-41 
Peshitto Version, 28, 32 
Peter, Gospel of, 176 
Plantin, Chr.,59 
Polycarp, 38 
Polyglot Bibles 

Antwerp, 49, 59 

Paris, 49, 60 

Walton's, 64 



184 



INDEX 



Porson, R., 5 

Porter, T. S., 116 

Printing, application to the Bible, 

46 
Psalms of Solomon, 20 
Punctuation of manuscripts, 9, 

20, 21 
Purist controversy, 94 

Ramsay, W. M., 168, 169 
Readings, various, 6, 7, 43 
Recensions, 92 
Reiche, G., 116 
Resch, A., 163, 164 
Reuss, E.,42, 55, 66,69 
Revisers of 1881, 154 
Robinson, Ed., 104 
Ronsch, H., 27 
Rooses, M., 59 
Ropes, J. H., 164 

Salmon, G., 32, 44, 104, 155, 168, 

169, 172, 175 
Samson, G. W., 105 
Sanday, W., 36, 41, 56, 120, 155 
Schaff, P., 5, 106, 118, 129, 143, 

152 
Scholz, J. M. A., 106-109 
Schott, 104 

Scribes, errors of, 4, 5, 80 
Scrivener, F. H. A., 7, 23, 54, 61, 

75, 109, 115, 116, 121, 122, 129, 

139-142, 152, 154, 155, 159 
Semler, J. S., 92, 93 
Septuagint, 16, 17, 18, 20 
Sepulveda, 53 
Simon, Richard, 64 
St. Catherine, convent of, 16, 29, 

34, 117, 118 
St. Gall, monastery of, 23 
St. Petersburg, Imperial Library 

at, 16 
Stephen, Robert, 56, 60, 70, 72 
Editions of New Testament, 56, 

57,64 
Stevens, H., 66 
Stichometry, 9 
Stunica, J. L., 48, 53 



Tatian, 32, 33, 45, 128, 167 
Tertullian, 39, 41, 43 
Text, 
Age of, 77, 83 
Corruptions of, 41, 43 
Definition of, 1 
Purity of, 83 
Textus Receptus, 60-62, 64, 70, 

96, 104, 106, 108, 119, 138, 140, 

175 
Theile, 104, 115 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 148 
Tholuck, A., 93 
Tischendorf, C, 16, 19, 21, 42, 

117-129 
T/rAoi, 11 
Tittmann, 104 
Todd, H. J., 66 
Toinard, Nich., 69 
Trabaud, H., 159 
Transcriptional evidence, 78, 79, 

81, 83, 84, 88 
Tregelles, S. P., 50, 51, 75, 108, 

115, 126, 129, 130-137 
Tychsen, O. G., 98, 99 
Tyler, A. W., 144 

Ulfilas, 35 

Uncial manuscripts, 8, 12, 14 

Valentinians, 39 

Valesian readings, 65 

Vatican Library, 19, 33, 50, 53, 67 

Vercellone, 19 

Versions of the New Testament, 

24-35 
Vienna Academy, 36 
Vienna, Imperial Library of, 98 
Volbeding, J. E., 129 
Von Gebhardt, O., 12, 16, 104, 

114, 121, 122, 129, 136, 159 
Vulgate, 

Alcuin, 27 

Clementine, 27, 49, 70, 72 

First publication of, 47 

Jerome, 26, 45, 70. 

Manuscripts of, collated, 71 

Supremacy of, 46 



INDEX 



185 



Walton, B., 64, 65 
Walton's Polyglot, 64-66, 68 
Ward, W. H., 144 
Warfield, B. B., 6 
Wechelian readings, 65 
Weiss, B., 62, 157, 169-171 
Wells, Ed., 69 
Westcott, B. F., 45, 59 
Westcott and Hort, 145-154, 171, 

175 
Wetstein, J. J., 21, 50, 90-92, 95, 

162 
Whiston, W., 159 



Willems, A., 62 

Wiseman, Cardinal, 25 

Woide, 99 

Wordsworth, White and Sanday, 

27, 56, 75 
Wiirttemburgian Bible Society, 

62 

Ximenes de Cisneros, 48 

Zahn, Th., 32, 165, 169 
Ziegler, 28 
Zockler, O., 169 



New Testament Handbooks 



EDITED BY 

SHAILER MATHEWS 

Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation, 
University of Chicago 

Arrangements are made for the following volumes, and the publishers 
will, on request, send notice of the issue of each volume as it appears and 
each descriptive circular sent out later; such requests for information 
should state whether address is permanent or not : — 

The History of the Textual Criticism of the 
New Testament 

Prof. Marvin R. Vincent, Professor of New Testament Exegesis, 
Union Theological Seminary. [Now ready. 

Professor Vincent's contributions to the study of the New Testament rank him 
among the first American exegetes. His most recent publication is " A Critical 
and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon" 
{International Critical Commentary), which was preceded by a " Students' 
New Testament Handbook," " Word Studies in the New Testament," and 
others. 

The History of the Higher Criticism of the 
New Testament 

Prof. Henry S. Nash, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, 
Cambridge Divinity School. 

Of Professor Nash's " Genesis of the Social Conscience," The Outlook said: " The 
results of Professor Nash's ripe thought are presented in a luminous, compact, 
and often epigrammatic style. The treatment is at once masterful and helpful, 
and the book ought to be a quickening influence of the highest kind; it surely 
will establish the fame of its author as a profound thinker, one from whom we 
have a right to expect future inspiration of a kindred sort." 

Introduction to the Books of the New Testament 

Prof. B. Wisner Bacon, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, 
Yale University. 

Professor Bacon's works in the field of Old Testament criticism include " The 
Triple Tradition of Exodus," and " The Genesis of Genesis," a study of the 
documentary sources of the books of Moses. In the field of New Testament 
study he has published a number of brilliant papers, the most recent of which is 
"The Autobiography of Jesus," in the American Journal of Theology. 

The History of New Testament Times in Palestine 

Prof. Shailer Mathews, Professor of New Testament History and 
Interpretation, The University of Chicago. [Now ready. 

The Congregationalist says of Prof. Shailer Mathews's recent work, " The Social 
Teaching of Jesus" : "Re-reading deepens the impression that the author is 
scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and yet conservative and pre- 
eminently sane. If, after reading the chapters dealing with Jesus' attitude 
toward man, society, the family, the state, and wealth, the reader will not agree 
with us in this opinion, we greatly err as prophets." 



The Life of Paul 

Prof. Rush Rhees, President of the University of Rochester. 

Professor Rhees is well known from his series of " Inductive Lessons " contributed 
to the Sunday School Times. His " Outline of the Life of Paul," privately 
printed, has had a flattering reception from New Testament scholars. 

The History of the Apostolic Age 

Dr. C. W. Votaw, Instructor in New Testament Literature, The 
University of Chicago. 

Of Dr. Votaw's " Inductive Study of the Founding of the Christian Church," Modern 
Churchy Edinburgh, says: "No fuller analysis of the later books of the New 
Testament could be desired, and no better programme could be offered for their 
study, than that afforded in the scheme of fifty lessons on the Founding of the 
Christian Church, by Clyde W. Votaw. It is well adapted alike for practical 
and more scholarly students of the Bible." 

The Teaching of Jesus 

Prof. George B. Stevens, Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale 
University. 

Professor Stevens's volumes upon " The Johannine Theology," " The Pauline The- 
ology," as well as his recent volume on " The Theology of the New Testament," 
have made him probably the most prominent writer on biblical theology in 
America. His new volume will be among the most important of his works. 

The Biblical Theology of the New Testament 

Prof. E. P. Gould, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Prot- 
estant Episcopal Divinity School, Philadelphia. 

Professor Gould's Commentaries on the Gospel of Mark (in the International Criti- 
cal Commentary) and the Epistles to the Corinthians (in the A merican Com- 
mentary) are critical and exegetical attempts to supply those elements which 
are lacking in existing works of the same general aim and scope. [In prepara- 
tion.] 

The Teaching of Jesus and Modern Social Problems 

Prof. Francis G. Peabody, Professor of Christian Ethics, Harvard 
University. 

Professor Peabody's public lectures, as well as his addresses to the students of 
Harvard University, touch a wide range of modern problems. The many read- 
ers of his " Mornings in the College Chapel " and nis published studies upon 
social and religious topics, will welcome this new work. 

The History of Christian Literature until Eusebius 

Prof. J. W. Platner, Professor of Early Church History, Harvard 
University. 

Professor Platner's work will not only treat the writings of the early Christian 
writers, but will also treat of the history of the New Testament Canon. 

OTHERS TO FOLLOW 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 



The Social Teachings of Jesus 

An Essay in Christian Sociology 



BY 



SHAILER MATHEWS, A.M. 

Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation in 
the University of Chicago 



1 2 mo. Cloth. $1.50 

Outlook : 

" Such a study is sure to be useful, and if the reader sometimes feels 
that the Jesus here presented has the spirit of which the world for the 
most part approves rather than that which brings its persecution, he 
will with renewed interest turn to the words of Jesus as narrated in the 
four Gospels. " 

Christian Index : 

" We commend Professor Mathews's book to all interested in matters 
sociological, exegetical, and to all Christians who desire to know the 
will of their Lord and Master." 

Congregationalist : 

" The author is scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and 
yet conservative and preeminently sane." 

The Evangel : 

" Professor Mathews gives the thoughtful reader a veritable feast in 
this essay in Christian Sociology. It is well thought out and carefully 
written. ... It is surely an able book, worthy of careful perusal, and 
gives promise of exerting a permanent influence upon Christian thought 
and life." 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 



Genesis of the Social Conscience, 



HENRY SYLVESTER NASH, 

Professor in the Episcopal Theological School \ 
Cambridge, Mass, 

THE RELATION BETWEEN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTIAN, 
ITY IN EUROPE AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 

Crown 8vo. Cloth. Price $1.50. 



THE OUTLOOK. 

" To the world's stock of good books Professor Nash has added one 
which is not the work of a clever summarizer only, but that of a clear 
and forceful originator. Perhaps not since the publication of Mr. Kidd's 
volume has a more genuinely popular sociological work appeared. . . . 

The results of Professor Nash's ripe thought are presented in a 
luminous, compact, and often epigrammatic style. The treatment is at 
once masterful and helpful, and the book ought to be a quickening 
influence of the highest kind; it surely will establish the fame of its 
author as a profound thinker, one from whom we have a right to expect 
future inspiration of a kindred sort. . . . 

Through a multitude of original and brilliant metaphors, similes, 
and illustrations, succeeding one another sometimes in almost bewilder- 
ing number, Professor Nash leads us step by step in the retrospect of 
the history of man's individualization. . . ." 

NEW UNITY. 

"The book is a novelty. It is an interesting experiment. It is worth 
writing and therefore worth the reading. Professor Nash undertakes 
to demonstrate the moral thread in history. He follows this moral line 
alone. It is in order to show the rise and growth of the social con- 
science. . . . The style of the book is crisp; but it is never dull." 
E. P. P. 

THE CRITIC. 

"The pages glitter with bright sayings; there are many attractive 
passages. The book is more than a tacit protest against the material- 
istic explanation of history." 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 

(56 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK. 

I 



Ethics and Revelation 



BY 



HENRY S. NASH 



Professor in the Episcopal Theological School at Cambridge; 
Author of" Genesis of the Social Conscience' 1 



i2mo. Cloth. $1.50 



Nashville Banner : 

"The author goes into the work with an earnestness, 
breadth, and intelligence that gives great interest to what 
he has to say." 

Charleston News and Courier: 

" The value and significance of Professor Nash's lectures 
lie chiefly in the advanced ground which he takes up with 
regard to the authority of the Bible and the Church in the 
matter of religious and social ethics. He begins by the 
assertion that the Bible marks out the road along which 
conscience must travel if it would treat our life on earth 
with abiding seriousness. But he is careful to show that 
the Bible should be seen and regarded in the light of 
history." 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

<5<5 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 



OCT ^ 1899 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



•2,3? 



LiBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 383 687 3 


« 




HB 


1 


i|||;; 


1B|H| 


In 







